Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A Climate Skeptic and a Superfreakonomist Walk Into a Bar.
Freakonomics and now SuperFreakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner may still be denying claims that they are climate-change skeptics, but Dave Weigel talked to some self-proclaimed skeptics who beg to differ:
“It reminds me of what happened when Michael Crichton wrote ‘State of Fear,’” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from the energy industry. “The problem for the left is that there are still some people who don’t toe the party line who have megaphones. And anyone who has a megaphone, they’re going to go after.”Of course, these endorsements do not in themselves prove that Levitt and Dubner are climate-change deniers anymore than, say, David Duke and Osama bin Laden's endorsements of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer proved them to be anti-Semites. However, these sorts of debates do not occur in a vacuum. Sure, Levitt and Dubner may well believe that the earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible. But when they write a chapter bashing solar energy and carbon emissions reduction generally, and endorsing utopian geoengineering plans over more proven solutions, the result is practically indistinguishable from denial.
…
[Cato fellow Patrick] Michaels, who has not read the book but is planning to pick it up, saluted Levitt and Dubner for tackling an issue that few popular economists touch. “It’s about time that people who do popular economics tell people the truth,” he said. “Fortunately, the planet is not warming.”
Indeed, I would argue that they are doing far more damage to the public discourse –- and in turn to the planet's health –- than Ebell or Michaels. Conservative think-tankers are expected to deny all manner of environmental catastrophes. Popular social science writers are not, and non-ideological ones especially have a greater impact as a result.
--Dylan Matthews
COMMENTS (2)
The worlds "global cooling" on the cover have more impact on the public debate than anything inside the book itself. You'd think these guys would understand that if you title a book "Do Levitt and Dubner Fuck Goats?" it doesn't matter whether the answer on page 237 is "yes" or "no."
Posted by: Bloix | October 23, 2009 2:09 PM
I just love the climate debate. It shows both sides as being crazy.
Point #1) We are not sure that man causes the earth to warm. We are well over 90% certain but not 100%. If you listen to Republicans it seems like they are 100% certain that it is not.
Point #2) Nuclear power is an excellent way to reduce carbon over the intermediate term. Most liberals hate this idea.
Point #3) There is virtualy no benefit from using solar or wind today. It forces utilities to switch on and off plants far more often and those plants emit more carbon because of it. It is fairly carbon intensive to build wind and solar today. The main reason to build wind or solar today is NOT to reduce carbon. It is to figure out how to build wind and solar in better ways in the future.
Point #4) Intelligent conservation is the best way to reduce carbon today. Don't go crazy by walking around in the dark but use the proper light bulbs and wear a sweater in the winter. Raise the temperature inside in the summer by a few degrees and lower it in the winter by a few degrees. Don't get a big engine in your new car just because it makes you faster than the next guy.
Point 5) A carbon tax would be good for America and probably be good for the world. It would give a small incentive to live in cities and a small disincentive to work 60 miles from home.
As I said, the purists on all sides are wrong.
Posted by: neil wilson | October 23, 2009 5:44 PM