Most readers of this blog are probably aware of the tit-for-tat between us and some critics of our global-warming chapter in SuperFreakonomics. In the larger scheme of things the dispute is practically meaningless, at best a very distant second to the actual climate issues on the table.
To that end, the best news I’ve heard recently is that Congress will next week hold its first-ever hearing on geoengineering solutions to global warming. I’m grateful to Ken Caldeira for alerting us to this hearing; he will be among the climate scientists to testify.
While there is a lot of room for a lot of legitimate debate about many aspects of global warming, let us say one thing here: we believe that anyone who reads our chapter without an agenda wouldn’t even find it particularly controversial. They will see that we routinely address the concerns that critics accuse us of ignoring (the problem of ocean acidification, e.g., — touched upon in the previous chapter — and the “excuse to pollute” that geoengineering solutions might afford), and that we neither “misrepresent” climate scientists nor flub the facts.
The attacks have been noisy, as is now the backlash. In recent days, the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even Jon Stewart have jumped in to defend what we wrote. USA Today also published our op-ed on the topic.
It seems the global-warming rhetoric is cooling. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for instance, seems to no longer think that we are quite so daft. Levitt and I recently spent a day in Washington talking about the book. During an interview on the Diane Rehm Show (with Terry Smith filling in), we spoke with Dr. Peter Frumhoff, the U.C.S.’s director of Science and Policy. It was a productive and civil discussion. Later in the evening, we had a talk/book signing at the Washington Post Conference Center. During the Q&A session, Aaron Huertas, a press secretary for the U.C.S., took the microphone. (The Union of UnConcerned Scientists, predictably, were a no-show.) Huertas said he liked what he heard about global warming during our lecture and interviews and that he looked forward to keeping the dialogue going. The next morning, Huertas posted a similar comment on the Journal editorial, while again calling for further discussion.
We’d love the discussion to continue! That’s the point of our chapter: to show that the current proposed path for dealing with global warming is inadequate, and to explore better solutions. I know that congressional hearings are often better known for drama than for science, but here’s hoping that the upcoming geoengineering discussions will throw some bright light on this topic.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“While there is a lot of room for a lot of legitimate debate about many aspects of global warming, let us say one thing here: we believe that anyone who reads our chapter without an agenda wouldn’t even find it particularly controversial.”
Right. Because being controversial was the furthest thing from your minds.
(rolls eyes)
The WSJ article you link to is “jumping in to defend what you wrote”? Have you read it? An article that compares Marxism to global warming is a worthwhile validation of your book?
I just finished the book today and glad I didn’t skip ahead to the global warming chapter. I thought it was well presented and thought provoking. I have mostly ignored the flat-earthers who don’t believe in man-made global warming as most of them are coming from ‘God would never let us destroy his creation’. You boys have done a good job of contributing to the conversation and done so in a civil, professional, intelligent manner…now if we can just get most of our leaders to do the same.
The geo-engineering balloon is a great idea that needs to be explored. The one question I had about the the 34 lbs of sulfur dioxide that would be pumped: How evenly would it be dispersed and how quickly? The ‘pipe’ of a volcano plume is a lot bigger than what is being suggested, but then maybe IV has incorporated this into their model.
You claim that “we routinely address the concerns that critics accuse us of ignoring [...] the problem of ocean acidification”.
Could you clarify? With some kind of specific quote, for instance? Because, y’know, there’s nothing I can see in the book that even remotely “addresses” it.
Ocean acidicifcation is one of several fundamental flaws with the sulphur aerosol techno-fix. Flaws that you would have discovered very quickly, had you actually researched the issue.
Seems to me this ThingsBreak piece is summarising the situation quite aptly at the moment.
Here is everything your chapter 5 says about ocean acidification:
[Caldeira] and a co-author coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification.’ the process by which the seas absorb so much carbon dioxide that corals and other shallow-water organisms are threatened.
It seems there is a little dissent about the science on solar cells and other things in the chapter:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
All good publicity in the end, no doubt?
Obviously, geoengineering needs to be assessed and studied. We may very well need to pump sulfates high into the atmosphere to slow global warming.
My impression, though, is that the science in the chapter is just plain sloppy and somewhat misleading, and lacks the intellectual rigor I’d expect from the the two of you (I have a master’s degree in climate science, so I know the topic well). It’s not an issue of bias — it’s more of an issue of how the numbers are presented.
For instance, how do you respond to this?: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
I mean, don’t you honestly think you misrepresent these numbers?
If you own up to misrepresenting these facts, it doesn’t mean you have to abandon the idea that geoengineering may work, or that you think it could be cost effective. (You’ve already succeeded greatly in drawing attention to this possible solution). But your sloppiness in the chapter really requires some explaining — otherwise, how can we trust the rest of your research?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
Ray Pierrehumbert crunches some numbers here and makes a pretty convincing case that you flubbed something. At this point there’s no harm in admitting that you guys goofed up a bit. The ensuing discussion has actually been constructive.