The authors of best selling Freakonomics confidently entering global debate on climate change with its controversy ideas. SuperFreakonomics has been responded in many ways, mostly criticizing. Some of you may find critics which are circulating through online media. They even called as “staggeringly illogical” to refer a statement within SuperFreakonomics.
Levitt and Dubner, might be excellent in the area of popular economics–explaining daily events and providing easy understanding to most people who never study economics. But, why in the SuperFreakonomics, the author take contrary side with mainstream understanding of global warming?
What’s actually the main issues in SuperFreakonomics as critics says about? And what’s the response of the author on that?
The main problem, as in Climate Feedback:
Levitt and Dubner clearly have virtually no understanding of atmospheric science. As such, they fail to account for some of the other planetary woes their proposed scheme – a sulphur-spewing 18-mile-long hose pipe – would engender
And this is some response ofrom f the author about what actually the book says regarding global warming:
We discuss some of the commonly held misperceptions about climate and energy, including the fact that the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is more complicated than is generally thought.
The most controversial of these solutions – a “stratoshield” — involves the controlled injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool ground temperatures, which mimics the natural cooling effects of a big volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo. This sort of “geoengineering” solution is intensely disliked within environmental circles
Through this books, Levitt and Dubner present alternate perspective on how our earth must be cooled. Unfortunately they put controversy ideas and almost unpopular scientific explanation. Scientists are reluctant to research using unpopular data and information. They like to employ confirmed data, proven and sourced from credible experts or institution.
SuperFreakonomics could be not very super when exploring global warming. It’s only works inviting critics and counter from more competence writer to most-expert climate scientists. For me, the book is good documentation to record how global warming issue is perceived in various manner and motivation. Hopefully this book won’t undermine current efforts of adaption and mitigation organized by international organizations and global society.