Are the Causes of Global Warming a Myth?

21 October 2009. Like me and four million others, you may have read the first ‘Freakonomics’ book and felt it was a refreshing new take full of contrarian insight. In the sequel, ‘SuperFreakonomics’, the authors have taken on global warming.

21 October 2009. Like me and four million others, you may have read the first ‘Freakonomics’ book and felt it was a refreshing new take full of contrarian insight. In the sequel, ‘SuperFreakonomics’, the authors have taken on global warming.

21 October 2009. Like me and four million others, you may have read the first ‘Freakonomics’ book and felt it was a refreshing new take full of contrarian insight. In the sequel, ‘SuperFreakonomics’, the authors have taken on global warming. Sadly they seem more focused on shock – with an article in the Times of London called Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Global Warming Is Wrong – than accuracy. The resulting controversy has over-shadowed and possibly even derailed what is a crucial discussion. [br]

[Editors note: We are in the process of migrating to a new Content Management Sytem, and in that process the rest of this article was lost. After much wailing and nashing of teeth, we have re-written a summarized version below. We hope it still packs some punch.  Sorry Keith!]

The article seems to be about the work of Intellectual Ventures, founded by former Microsoft wonderkid Nathan Myhrvold.

It is a potentially important story because it questions some preconceptions (something that should happen more often) and provides some evidence to support geoengineering, a solution to at least some environmental problems that we may see implemented in our time.

Unfortunately, misconceptions are not better than preconceptions. The Freakonomics team have been more interested in generating controversy and publicity than in researching and cross-checking their story, and have sadly ended up doing more harm than good. [br]

One of the biggest issues in the story and book, as reported by Nick Pooley in Bloomberg, is the quote from Ken Calderia, of the Carnegie Institute of Washington. Dubner and Levitt, the Freakonomics team, wrote of Ken that ‘his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight’.

Ken has said on his website in rebuttal that

[quote]”Carbon dioxide is the right villain,” says Caldeira, “insofar as inanimate objects can be villains.” [/quote]

Nick Pooley added this:

[quote]Levitt and Dubner do say that the book “overstates” Caldeira’s position. That’s a weasel word: The book claims the opposite of what Caldeira believes …

Why does this matter? Because there’s a titanic battle going on over whether and how to reduce carbon emissions, and this soon-to-be bestseller tries to convince people that we don’t need to do so. Dubner and Levitt trumpet their “wrong villain” line in their table of contents and promotional material. On National Public Radio the other day, Levitt said, “The real problem isn’t that there’s too much carbon in the air.”

“SuperFreakonomics” never identifies the “right villain,” so I called Dubner and asked. “I don’t think anybody knows for sure,” he told me. Then he acknowledged that the chapter’s most newsworthy claim “could have been better phrased, as ‘carbon dioxide is not the only villain.’”

That’s a huge admission. No climate scientist believes carbon dioxide is the only villain: methane, nitrous oxide and other gases need to be reduced too. But that basic truth wouldn’t have drawn attention. It wouldn’t have given Levitt a bold contrarian line for NPR.[/quote]

In other words, they are not being contrarian at all, but are trying hard to look and sound like they are, which will lead to more harm than good.

You can read more (much more) from Yale360, Wonk Room, Joe Romm, Scott LeMieux, Paul Krugman, Brian Dupuis, and David Roberts, little of which looks good for the Freakonomics team.

It is a pity that the way in which the story was written has become the key issue. It reads very strangely in fact, because the first part seems to indicate there is not a problem, and the second part proposes a solution.

The vast majority of scientific opinion states that there is a serious problem – you can read the posts about on for more on that.

The proposed solution would have been a much more interesting topic to focus on. Geoengineering looks for ways to solve global warming by engineering on a planetary scale, in particular by reflecting sunlight back out into space in order to cool the planet.

The solution that Dubner and Levitt describe, which was being developed by Myhrvold’s team with input from Caldiera, was to ‘excrete’ sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere. This is what large volcanic erruptions such as that by Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines did in 1991, and scientists recorded its cooling effect.

While this may well help reduce global warming, it requires much greater study. That is because no-one knows what the long-term effect of pumping vast amounts of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere could have. Would it lead to changes in weather systems or a return of acid rain? Furthermore, it will not stop the acidification of the seas, which if left unchecked will lead to the dissolving of corals and the loss of many sea creatures according to Caldiera’s research.

Geoengineering is a tool that may be needed – but it is a measure of last resort, fraught with dangers. Far better to start cutting our carbon emissions now – and far better for the Freakonomics boys to focus on careful analysis not controversy.

Keith Timimi

EconomyWatch.com