SuperFreakonomics

In the book's fifth chapter, the author proposes that the climate system can be intentionally regulated by construction of a stratoshield.[5]

The chapter has been criticized by economists and climate science experts who say it contains numerous misleading statements and discredited arguments. Among the critics are Paul Krugman,[6] Brad DeLong,[7] Raymond Pierrehumbert,[8] The Guardian,[9] Bloomberg News,[10] and The Economist.[11] Elizabeth Kolbert, a science writer for The New Yorker who has written extensively on global warming, contends that "just about everything they [Levitt and Dubner] have to say on the topic is, factually speaking, wrong."[12]

Joseph Romm said that SuperFreakonomics had seriously misrepresented the position of climate scientist Ken Caldeira;[13] the book says among other things, that Caldeira's research tells him CO
2 is "not the right villain", an assertion Caldeira strongly disputes.[14] Caldeira has commented

I believe all of the ideas attributed to me are based on fact, with the exception of the 'carbon dioxide is not the right villain' line. That said, when I am speaking, I place these facts in a very different context and draw different policy conclusions.... I believe the authors to have worked in good faith. They draw different conclusions than I draw from the same facts, but as authors of the book, that is their prerogative.[15]

Dubner responded that with hindsight the line describing Ken Caldeira overstated his position, but noted that Caldeira had been sent a preview of the text and had approved it.[15]

Caldeira has acknowledged that he did receive the preview,[15] but disagreed that the errors were his responsibility: "I feel no need to read, fact check, or make detailed comments on documents that arrive in my in-box. I have lots of other things to do, like trying to get my science out the door."[16] As it transpired, Dubner had been apprised of Caldeira's objection to the "right villain" assertion, but did not delete the line as Caldeira expected, although Caldeira believes this was due to a good faith misunderstanding.[17]

Regarding their own views on global warming, Levitt and Dubner have stated on their Freakonomics blog that global warming is "a man-made phenomenon" and "an important issue to solve". They go on to explain that where they differ with the establishment view is in what the most effective solutions to that problem are.[18] For an establishment review of how Levitt and Dubner use arithmetic in their dismissal of the solar photovoltaic option to mitigate global warming, see Raymond Pierrehumbert's open letter to Steven Levitt at Realclimate.org.[19]