The freakonomists vs. the world
Stephen Dubner and Nathan Myhrvold have now both written retorts to the many critiques of the chapter on global warming in the new book Superfreakonomics (which is co-authored by Dubner and economist Steven Levitt and stars, in its global warming segments, inventor-dude Myhrvold). They're both mainly responding to the lengthy critique leveled by physicist/climate blogger Joe Romm, which I referenced in my post on Levitt last week.
Dubner counters Romm's charge that he and Levitt twisted the words of climate scientist Kent Caldeira by demonstrating that Romm twisted Caldeira's words too. After reading Romm's rebuttal-of-the-rebuttal, though, I think Dubner-Levitt did more substantive twisting than Romm did (although who knows what I'll think after reading Dubner's-rebuttal-of-the-rebuttal-of-the-rebuttal). As for Myhrvold, he does seems to succeed in showing that he knows a bit more about solar power than Romm gave him credit for.
But I guess I'd have to mostly agree with the verdict rendered by my former boss Eric Pooley—who is an old friend of Dubner's, has spent the last couple of years working on a book about global warming, and is one of the most fact-driven people I have ever known—that Dubner and Levitt come across in the global warming chapter as a couple of dilettantes out to provoke more than enlighten:
Dubner wonders why everyone is so angry. In part, it's because the book's blithe remedies -- “We could end this debate and be done with it, and move on to problems that are harder to solve,” Levitt told the U.K. Guardian newspaper -- are an insult to the thousands of scientists who have devoted their careers to this crisis.
I'm also not a fan of their continuing campaign to depict critics such as Romm as religious zealots out to stamp out heresy. Romm is certainly zealous, but it's clear from reading his blog that he's mainly out to stamp out the continuous stream of misinformation spewed out by global warming skeptics. That doesn't mean he's necessarily right, but he does seem pretty interested in facts.
Dubner and Levitt (and Myhrvold) aren't global warming skeptics, and they have some interesting (and still valid) points to make on the subject. The big three seem to be (1) don't put all too much stock in climate forecasts, because forecasting of complex systems is really hard, (2) eating meat may be worse for the global climate than driving a car (a stance backed up by a new report out from Worldwatch, which says livestock may account for 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions), and (3) we should take geoengineering seriously as a way to attack global warming. I'm pretty sure they could have made all three of these points without bringing the wrath of the climate "zealots" (a.k.a. scientists and stuff) down upon them. Their chapter wouldn't have been as contrarian and provocative, and contrarian and provocative is the freakonomists' trademark. But the contrarianism and provocation seem to go over a lot better when it's backed up by actual research done by Levitt or some kindred-spirit social scientist.
-
1
[...] Update: More on the global warming brouhaha here. [...]
-
2
Thank you for the update. I have a feeling that there is much more to come. Please keep us informed.
-
3
Myrhvold in today's NYT Freakonomics blog writes:
"So for every watt of electricity they generate, current solar cells throw about 10 watts into the climate as heat. Some of this heat would have occurred anyway when the light was absorbed by the ground, but the most effective solar cell installations are in deserts where the albedo is pretty high (.4 to .5) and there is little cloud cover, so the solar cells cause a bunch of heating that would not have otherwise occurred."
That is a red herring of the first order. The fraction of the surface area of deserts likely to be ever covered by solar panels is minuscule. The albedo effect, therefore, makes no real difference to the heat balance. It is like pointing to the 60% waste heat from fossil power plants as the cause for global warming. It is not, the CO2 emitted from them is.
-
4
How can they claim (3) when they also state (1)? To take geoengineering seriously you actually have to have complete faith in climate models/forecasts. Because otherwise you aren't actually geoengineering but just playing around and hope for the best.
It's actually worse, to have faith in geoengineering, you not only have to assume that the climate models are basically correct, but you also have to assume that your prediction model of the the consequences of geoengineering is also correct...
I fail to see how they can argue for geoengineering when they also state forecasting of complex systems is really hard.
So the only relevant/intellectual honest thing in the chapter the meat thing... aight.
-
4.1
Spot on (and Justin, you should hang your head in shame!)
Further to that, were greenhouse gases to continue to increase, their effect masked by geoengineering, and geoengineering then to cease, there would be a fast-moving catastrophe that would defeat all chance of readjustment.
-
-
5
I ran across this quote from a Levitt/Dubner interview with The Guardian on 10-12-09. Assuming it's correct, then if I were a climate scientist I'd be raving mad and carrying a cleaver to stick in his head:
The real solution, they maintain, involves pumping large quantities of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere through an 18-mile-long hose, of which more later. "We could end this debate and be done with it," Levitt says, with a sigh, "and move on to problems that are harder to solve." [end quote]
Words fail me. OMG!!! What intellectual arrogance! He actually dumps the world's most ridiculous diss on top of thousands of professionals who've been working in the field for dozens of years. He thinks he's found THE SOLUTION. That is utter crackpotism, lacking only references to Newton and Feynman. If he thinks this is THE SOLUTION then obviously he's examined all the science and has sat through endless conferences going over the data when of course he hasn't and admits that he hasn't.
So yeah, if I were in the field, I'd be reacting like a guy just hit on my underage daughter.
-
6
I don't think you did your homework too well on Myhrvold. I refer you to Yglesias's documentation of his (and that of his cutesy pals) defense of his statement that solar panels increase global warming because they "all black".
Pathetic, since it is demonstrably untrue.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/myhrvold-on-solar-blue-is-a-kind-of-black.php
Plenty of room to discuss serious solutions. But I suggest you forget climate model arguments and look at satellite pictures of the ice caps for the last 15 years. It gives a lot of credibility to the virtually gloabal concensus of serious scientists on the subject.
Then I recommend you go read the first lecture of Feynman's "QED". It does a nice job of seperating computation from fundamental understanding.
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
If this entire crowd delays us until the consequences
are relatively horrible, are you OK if the rampaging peasants confiscate all their assets?Personally, I think that would be merciful.
-
7
[...] TIME Magazine: CuriousCapialist: The Freakonomists vs. The World [...]
-
8
[...] I post the link of the column. [...]
-
9
[...] thought they could do the same thing, and you can sense their hesitation now that it's not working so well. Though it did work like a charm on the normally sharp Jon Stewart, who offered Levitt this [...]
- foxjust About to walk to LA Public Library for this http://bit.ly/7LgRu6 Am told only a nobody walks in LA - 1 day ago
- foxjust just took first ride on LA metro. Totally disorienting not to have car to park here - 2 days ago
- foxjust Thanks to Bama fans for reminding us we needed to buy TP! (Turns out we're fine on detergent). Oh, and nice game #ironbowl - 1 week ago
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy
Quotes of the Day »
RSS