Kolbert writes that Levitt and Dubner treat climate change as "mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are." But I don't think that's right. Freaknomics 1 was all about Levitt's cleverness, but Freakonomics 2 is much more about the cleverness of other people such as John List and that super-rich Microsoft guy.

To follow up on one of my earlier thoughts, I think Levitt really has changed his career trajectory in a big way with Freakonomics 2. Before Freakonomics 1, Levitt was a very successful professor: well paid, with the opportunity to work with excellent students, lots of invitations to speak in interesting places, the assurance that people would notice his articles when they came out, etc. After Freakonomics 1, he had all this, plus riches and fame. And I have the impression that he worked hard to keep up with his academic duties, doing research, editing journals, etc. After this new book, though, I think there's no going back. A lot of people just aren't going to take his stuff seriously anymore--and the people who do like it, might very well like it for the wrong reasons. Also, Levitt's gotta be careful now about who he pisses off. He might feel on top of the world now, as an equal-opportunity offender who's riled conservatives on abortion and race, punctured liberal myths on climate change, and lived to tell the tale. At this point, though, further bold stands might well be subtractive, chipping away at the proportion of the audience that can trust him.

Or maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe Levitt can have two parallel careers: one as a serious researcher and one as an author of popular books with less well-supported claims. I wouldn't think it's possible, but maybe he can keep both balls in the air.

Getting back to the climate change issue, I think Levitt and Dubner are on to something, not about global warming being a "religion"--that just seems like the currently-popular insult, to label things you disagree with as being a religion--but about the idea that going against the grain on this one bothers people, a lot. Again, Freakonomics 1 had some highly-questionable abortion research, and abortion is a hot topic, but this didn't seem to hurt the reception of the book or Levitt's standing as scholar. And Freakonomics 2 also features the offensive-to-many claim that drunk people should drive instead of walk and that prostitution is a good career opportunity. But I doubt either of these would've derailed the juggernaut (to mix metaphors). It took global warming. Beyond the political issues, one key difference is that there really is a research consensus that Levitt and Dubner are opposing on global warming. For the abortion, drunk driving, and prostitution examples, all that they're battling are the majority views on morality and common sense. It's highly plausible that a hard-nosed researcher can bring his quantitative skills to bear on a problem and reveal hidden truths that are counter to conventional morality and common sense. It's not so plausible that an outsider can demolish the findings of scientists such as Raymond Pierrehumbert (see below) who are themselves quantitative researchers.

Whatever you say about the merits of the case, I admire Levitt for taking his stance on climate change. Freaknomics 1 made lots of money, and Chicago has a pretty low cost of living (I'm comparing to New York, remember), so it's not like he really had any need for the sequel. He's already famous and can get in the newspaper whenever he completes a new research article, and he also has a blog where he can share his ideas with many thousands of people and also promote others' work that he likes. Rocking the boat with Freakonomics 2, though, that changes everything. He gets more of what he doesn't need more of (money and fame) but maybe loses big in other ways. If he really cares about the geoeongineering thing, though, then it could be worth it. Throwing away (part of) his reputation for a cause--that's admirably selfless, I think.

When his University of Chicago colleague Raymond Pierrehumbert (in the Geophysical Sciences department) slammed his discussion of geoengineering and invited him to come by his office (by a somewhat circuitous route) to discuss the topic, Levitt responded by saying that he enjoyed Pierrehumbert's "intentional misreading" of the chapter and saying, of Levitt's own writings on the subject, "I'm not sure why that is blasphemy." I'm not sure on this latter point either--I did a quick search and couldn't find the place where Pierrehumbert described Levitt's writings in those terms.

But I do feel for Levitt on the general issue. When I worked at Berkeley, I had a couple of colleagues who intentionally misread my work, for example describing a nonlinear differential equation model as "linear." (Actually, I have a feeling that they were (a) too lazy to read my articles in detail and (b) too stupid to understand them, but I'll just be charitable and describe them as intentionally misreading.) I had thoughts of going over to their offices to explain their misunderstandings, but I was so angry that I couldn't bring myself to do it. I suspect Levitt feels similarly about Pierrehumbert. It's hard for me to imagine exactly what conversation the two of them would have in that office in the Hinds Geophysical Laboratory, but probably nothing much would come of it.

P.S. I really hope I can use some of this in my next book. Otherwise I've been blogging my ass off on this topic and I'm getting nothing out of it.