I admit that I’m torn in my opinion about SuperFreakonomics. I was predisposed to fully embrace it. The first book, Freakonomics, did great things for the economics profession. It made economics interesting and readable. It broadened the scope of the field in the mind of the public. Plus, Dubner is a graduate of Appalachian State University. He came to campus, gave the opening convocation talk, I went to his public reading, met him and he sent my kids a free copy of his Belly Button book. I’ve also contributed at the Freakonomics blog. So, I was horrified to hear that they got the science in their climate change chapter all wrong.
Don’t be mistaken. I don’t know if it is all wrong or not. I’m a simple economist. But it seems that real-life climate scientists, and not just the advocates, think that it is really, really wrong as well. The problem, to me, is that Dubner and Levitt stepped a bit too far outside their realm of economics.
Let me tell a somewhat related story. I participate on a technical committee for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. There are a bunch of biologists on the committee and a handful of economists. We peer review scientific evidence related to fisheries. The current big issue is red snapper, a popular recreational and commercial species. It seems like most of the scientific evidence is pointing to the red snapper being overfished in the south Atlantic. There have been data workshops, peer review and et cetera and the biologists on the committee seem to be in agreement that the red snapper is in trouble. Let’s call that the “scientific consensus.”
If a species is overfished, by law, fisheries managers must do something to reduce the overfishing. This always involves reducing the fishing effort. Not surprising, the commercial fisherman and recreational anglers are not happy. This will significantly reduce their income and change their lifestyles. There have been editorials in the papers, angry emails, phone calls and other types of pushback.
One of these other types of pushback is another scientific view from at least one fisheries biologist. This minority view says that red snapper is not being overfished. The minority view, to me, sounds convincing. In fact it sounds so dang convincing that I’m surprised when the majority says it is wrong! What is an economist to think? Both sides give thoroughly convincing arguments if you have only a shallow understanding of the topic. The problem is that I’m not trained in fisheries biology. Most economists that contribute to fisheries policy are not either. Stepping back you realize that a deep understanding is needed to figure out who has the better grasp of the data.
Most economists aren’t trained in climate science either. Most economists can be convinced, at least in the short term, by a scientist who pursues theories that might have some theoretical justification but are a bit off the wall otherwise. In the same way, most non-economists can be convinced by an economist who doing the same thing (e.g., we should go back to the gold standard), at least in the short run. The SuperFreakonomics climate change trainwreck is riveting, but sad to watch.
I wish SuperFreakonomics had stuck to economics.