This is a tale of serendipity.\u00a0 About two brand-new books on climate, written independently, that mysteriously collide.<\/p>\n
One of them, Superfreakonomics<\/em>, manages \u2013 despite the fame and brilliance of its authors \u2013 to enthusiastically endorse two notorious misconceptions about climate science.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s the serendipitous part.\u00a0 Even though the authors of the second book, A Climate for Change<\/em>, had never seen Superfreakonomics<\/em>, they managed to write spot-on rebuttals on both points.<\/p>\n Freaknomics<\/em><\/strong> and its brand-new sequel<\/strong><\/p>\n Unless you\u2019ve been trapped in a bomb shelter the past few years, you\u2019ve heard of Freakonomics<\/em>, the best-selling book by a star economist (Steven Levitt) and his journalist co-author (Stephen Dubner).<\/p>\n Levitt, a professor at the University of Chicago, is a brilliant guy.\u00a0 He\u2019s already won a \u201cbest young economist\u201d prize, which often foretells a future economics Nobel.\u00a0 And Dubner is a gifted writer.<\/p>\n Freakonomics <\/em>gave us colorful accounts of some of Prof. Levitt\u2019s own quirky research.\u00a0 Like his study of Japanese sumo wrestling records, which showed that top-rank wrestlers deliberately lose certain matches to help their opponents remain in the elite top tier.\u00a0 Presumably in the hope that they\u2019ll return the favor.<\/p>\n So far, so good.<\/p>\n Now our best-selling authors have written a sequel: SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Its official release date is Tuesday, October 20, 2009.<\/p>\n As you can guess from the title, one chapter is about climate change.\u00a0 That chapter has been the subject of what diplomats would call a spirited debate over the past few days.\u00a0 You can read the chapter for yourself<\/a> (PDF, sorry, not the best quality).<\/p>\n What are people saying about the Superfreakonomics<\/em> take on climate?<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, here\u2019s Professor Paul Krugman (who actually has<\/em> a Nobel in Economics):<\/p>\n [T]here\u2019s an average of one statement per page [in the Superfreakonomics <\/em>chapter on climate] that\u2019s either flatly untrue or deeply misleading<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The respected climate science blog, RealClimate.org, says this about Superfreakonomics<\/em>\u2019 proposed fix to climate change:<\/p>\n the reasons why Levitt and Dubner like [their solution] so much are based on a misreading of the science, a misrepresentation of proposed solutions, and truly bizarre interpretations<\/a> of how environmental problems have been dealt with in the past.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here\u2019s The New Republic\u2019s <\/em>Brad Plumer:<\/p>\n Levitt and Dubner just parachute into the field of climate science and offer some lazy punditry on the subject dressed up as \u2018contrarianism.\u2019\u00a0 There’s no original research. \u00a0There’s nothing bold or explosive. \u00a0It’s just garden-variety ignorance<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then there\u2019s economist Brad DeLong:<\/p>\n I have a little unsolicited advice for Levitt and Dubner.\u00a0 If I were them, I would abjectly apologize.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Statistical genius Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight.com, says that<\/p>\n the chapter on climate science is by far the weakest material<\/a> in either of the two Freakonomics books.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not to mention the tireless Joe Romm of ClimateProgress:<\/p>\n New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and \u2018patent nonsense<\/a>.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Meanwhile, an actual climate scientist writes A Climate for Change<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n While an economist and a journalist were busy writing Superfreakonomics<\/em>, a real-life climate scientist and geoscience professor, Prof. Katharine Hayhoe, was writing A Climate for Change<\/em>.\u00a0 (Actually, co-authoring it with her husband, Andrew Farley, an evangelical pastor.)\u00a0 It\u2019s out on October 29, and you can order it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n You may not know Hayhoe, but you should.\u00a0 She\u2019s an outstanding young climate scientist, so well-regarded that she was chosen to be a principal author of the recent report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 And both she and her husband have golden pens.<\/p>\n A Climate for Change <\/em>is designed to communicate to everyone \u2013 <\/strong>with a special focus on people of faith \u2013 what they need to know about climate change.\u00a0 In plain, crisp English.<\/p>\n Sloppy Superfreakonomics<\/em> blunders mysteriously anticipated by brilliant climate scientist<\/strong><\/p>\n Now for the serendipity.<\/p>\n Superfreak <\/span><\/em>blunder #1:\u00a0 \u201cCarbon dioxide doesn\u2019t necessarily warm the earth<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what Levitt and Dubner say on p. 183 of Superfreakonomics<\/em>:<\/p>\n \ufeff\u201c[C]hanges in carbon dioxide levels don’t necessarily mirror human activity. \u00a0Nor does atmospheric carbon dioxide necessarily warm the earth<\/strong>: \u00a0ice-cap evidence shows that over the past several hundred thousand years, carbon dioxide levels have risen after a rise in temperature, not the other way around<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n That second sentence?\u00a0 Though written by Levitt and Dubner, House Republican Joe Barton \u2013 a fervent climate change denier \u2013 often says the same thing.\u00a0 Like the Superfreakonomics<\/em> authors, Rep. Barton hasn\u2019t done his homework.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s the great part:\u00a0 Hayhoe wrote the rebuttal without even seeing the Levitt\/Dubner book.\u00a0 Here\u2019s your first sneak preview of A Climate for Change:<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe Chicken or the Egg?”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n “[Looking at the historic record, some people say that] [c]arbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are just following suit rather than leading the hand.\u00a0 . . .”<\/strong><\/p>\n Within this line of reasoning, there is a partial truth. So, \ufb01rst, let\u2019s look at the true part.<\/p>\n Scientists believe that the last ice age ended thousands of years ago when Earth\u2019s orbit shifted, altering the distribution of sunlight received by the earth. Temperatures rose a few degrees over several hundred years, with little or no change in greenhouse gases. So, as far as we can tell, it is indeed true that greenhouse gases have never initiated a climate warming before.<\/p>\n Now, for the rest of the truth. That initial temperature change caused by the sun was only one-third of the total temperature difference between that ice age and today. So what caused the rest of the warming? \u00a0The answer is: \u00a0carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.<\/strong><\/p>\n …<\/strong>So the truth is that increases in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases have caused temperatures to increase in the past<\/em>.<\/strong> And realizing this has many scientists worried.\u00a0 If just a slight warming caused by the sun could be ampli\ufb01ed threefold by natural carbon dioxide . . . way back then, what might happen today?\u201d<\/p>\n So much for the chicken and the egg.\u00a0 What about this claim from the Superfreakonomics <\/em>authors:\u00a0 \u201cNor does atmospheric carbon dioxide necessarily warm the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what Hayhoe told me what I asked her about that today:\u00a0 \u201cThat\u2019s a complete non sequitur.\u00a0 Carbon dioxide molecules absorb infrared, or heat, energy; this has been understood since the 1700s. And as far as we can tell from the data, carbon dioxide increases have always warmed the earth.\u00a0 No exceptions<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Superfreak<\/span><\/em> blunder # 2:\u00a0 \u201cGlobal temperatures are now declining.” <\/span><\/p>\n On page 187 of Superfreakonomics<\/em>, the authors say this:<\/p>\n \u201cThen there\u2019s this little discussed fact about global warming:\u00a0 as the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature reading over that time has in fact decreased<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n To call this claim \u201clittle discussed\u201d is a bit strange.\u00a0 The \u201cglobal warming is over\u201d claim is a staple of climate change deniers.\u00a0 It\u2019s a constant mantra on Fox News, among other places.\u00a0 In fact, not long ago, anchor Laura Ingraham threw it at Hayhoe at the end of an interview<\/a> on The O\u2019Reilly Factor \u2013 <\/em>while giving her no time to respond.<\/p>\n But the mantra is wrong.\u00a0 And once again, Hayhoe managed to anticipate the Superfreakonomics <\/em>mistake:<\/p>\n \u201cNo Cooling in Sight”<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite the evidence for a warming trend from the global record, some still claim that global warming has slowed down, or that \u2018it\u2019s not much of a problem anymore,\u2019 or even \u2018It\u2019s stopped.\u2019\u00a0 Talk of global cooling . . . has recently resurfaced.<\/p>\n It\u2019s true that, if the sun alone were controlling our climate, there would be reason to suspect that we\u2019re headed for a new ice age\u2014eventually.\u00a0 . . .<\/p>\n But today, we know the sun is not the only factor.\u00a0 As we\u2019ll discuss later, the idea that greenhouse gases are driving climate has been around for more than 150 years.\u00a0 And this theory has been the subject of tens of thousands of scientific journal articles.<\/p>\n Even still, the notion of global cooling has recently resurfaced, and Figure 4 helps explain why.\u00a0 This graph zooms in on global temperatures over the last \ufb01fty years. \u00a0The red line shows how temperatures have been rising from 1960 to 2010, while the blue line shows how you can use this same record to support an argument that the world actually cooled from 1998 to 2008.\u00a0 Some carefully select these two data points to argue that climate change isn\u2019t occurring.\u00a0 Or they even claim that the world is cooling.<\/p>\n