From the economics angle the biggest problem with the SuperFreakonomics climate change chapter is the lack of economics. That sounds odd, doesn't it?. As I've said before I have no idea if the 18 mile volcano tubes are ridiculous or not, but it should be considered a complement to reducing CO2 is a complement and not a substitute (at least in 2009, without a crystal ball). The misquotes are a concern too.
What bothers me most is the omission of a discussion of government policy that might be effective in reducing CO2. The strawman policy that is considered is voluntary behavior, encouraged by Al Gore's moral suasion. They argue that it won't work because physicians don't wash their hands often enough even though they know that it is in the best interests of patients. Environmental economists have long known that moral suasion is not effective in achieving the optimal amount of pollution reductions. So, while demonizing physicians makes for a nice story, I don't think it helps us understand climate policy.
Where do Levitt and Dubner stand on carbon taxes vs cap-and-trade? We don't know because those words are not mentioned. Where do they stand on Waxman-Markey? We don't know. Where do they stand on command-and-control vs economic incentives? We don't know.
