Green Affected The Global Warming Church vs. SuperFreakonomics
| 19 October 2009
Editor's note: Download a PDF here of the final chapter mentioned in this article.
When word broke that the final chapter of the forthcoming SuperFreakonomics book looks at economically-viable ways to reduce global warming, the Global Warming Church came out swinging.
Prominent bloggers and columnists like Paul Krugman and ClimateProgress’ Joseph Romm went after the credibility of authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Romm -- who, from his position of power in the Clinton administration, was influential in requiring Americans to use low-flush toilets, which don't always get the job done -- attempted to discredit the book by smearing various people who are skeptical about the Global Warming Church:
In olden days, we called such folks Artistes of Bull[----], but now I’m gonna call them F.A.K.E.R.s — Famous “Authorities” whose Knowledge (of climate) is Extremely Rudimentary [Error-riddled? I'm still working on this acronym].
The most famous FAKER was Michael Crichton. I thought Freeman Dyson was the leading FAKER today, but [SuperFreakonomics interviewee Nathan] Myhrvold makes Dyson sound like James Hansen. I will devote an entire blog post to the BS peddled here by Myhrvold (who now runs Intellectual Ventures) because I’m sure he’s got the ear of a lot of well-meaning, influential, but easily duped, people like Levitt and Dubner.
…Levitt and Dubner and Myhrvold are FAKERs. They simply don’t know what they are talking about.
Levitt and Dubner responded this weekend:
…if you don’t like someone’s position, attack their credibility.
Bingo. Levitt and Dubner have learned that attempts to become a zero-carbon society are unrealistic. But if you don’t agree with global warming orthodoxy, you face personal attacks. The Freakonomics authors' sin was to consider approaches to address global warming that don't involve quixotic quests to change the behavior of nearly 7 billion people.
...Some critics claim that we are too pessimistic about carbon mitigation, that we understate the probability of catastrophic climate change, that we are wrong to write that “the movement to stop global warming has taken on the feel of a religion.” Fair enough: we will debate those issues.
But it would be good if the debate were inspired by the content of our chapter rather than a partisan attack...
Fat chance. The global warming church tends to avoid genuine scientific debate. Skeptics have repeatedly invited chief priest Al Gore to debate. He has yet to accept. Recently, he even asked that the microphone be cut off when someone dared raise questions about his dubious movie.
