Climate of Fear

by Thomas Gale Moore

Book Overview

Most climate experts agree that industrial emissions of carbon dioxide either already have led or will soon lead to an increase in global temperatures. While many consider that reason enough to undertake dramatic political action, economist Thomas Gale Moore asks, So what? Both historical and economic analysis suggests, he argues, that a warmer climate would be, on balance, beneficial to both mankind and the environment. The book calls into question...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1882577647
• ISBN13: 9781882577644
• Release Date: April 1998
• Publisher: Cato Institute
• Length: 1 Pages
• Weight: 0.95 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 6.1" x 9.3"

Customer Reviews

Economics of Global Warming

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed.." HL Mencken. I purchased this as a group of books and sources to study differing perspectives and gain deeper information on global warming. This book is written by an economist, who asks the questions of cost benefit of different courses of action. In chapter 1 he points out that there is not agreement on global warming. Claims regarding man made global warming often use poor science, weak theories, and forced models. But, if we accept global warming, what will be the cost benefits of various courses of action. A major point is the economic costs to USA jobs to achieve the proposed actions to cut CO2. Kyoto does not include China, India, Brazil, Mexico..... As costs go up in the USA, companies will move production to China (not covered by Kyoto) for even lower costs. Net, there would be no global environmental benefit other than eliminating USA jobs. Kyoto is an excellent proposal for China, India, Brazil, Mexico........... Setting standards to 1990 would punish the USA for its stronger growth over that of Europe since 1990. Analysis has already been completed showing base USA manufacturing industries would be significantly disadvantaged and would need to move to China, India, Brazil: automotive, iron & steel, cement, petrochemical, chemical, paper, aluminum. The Department of Energy has already reported "imports from nonparticipating countries would displace a significant amount of US industrial output and employment". One can see why the labor unions have strongly opposed Kyoto. Points brought into question: * What about the other green house gases, foremost water vapor * The models being used are forced to provide predetermined results to support a political position and do not replicate current global conditions * Often the global warming alarmist use conflicting data to make different points. One example is rainfall in global warming. The same alarmist will in one area point out global warming will lead to less rainfall, and thus poor agriculture. Yet, the same person will later site more damage due to flooding due to increased rains? * One third of the USA CO2 comes from transportation. Are Americans really willing to cut driving? But if we accept that the earth is warming, what are the consequences? * Historically, people have flourished in warming times; i.e. 800-1300; when temperatures cycle down, people suffer * Due to the science and physics, the warming will occur more in colder climates, winter, and at night. * People prefer warmer weather - o Where do we vacation? o In total, people prefer warm sports over cold sports o USA business have already been moving South o Large percentages of people move South when they retire o People prefer to work in warmer weather o Lower net heating costs * People more readily adapt to warming than cooling weather * Health o More people die in the cold, more die in the winter o Health pr

As a Botanist, I'm disturbed

I must first apologize for not actually having read the book in question, but I must disagree with the reviewer from stanford. He or she states that rises in co2 concentrations will change internal concentrations of c:n:p ratios in plants, that's simply not true. algae maintain a ratio of 106:50:1 (the redfield ratio) in the ocean that has a 800:50:1 ratio...in all the studies with increased co2 content, no plants have increased c:n:p ratios. For a c:n:p ratio to be effected, there must be a change of n or p contents, neither of which are absorbed from the atmosphere for plant use (n only marginally). Of course plants will benefit from increased co2, co2 is the source of sugars, and the metabolism will be sped up, but that will not decrease a plant's lifecycle, a maximal photosynthetic level is controlled ultimately but rubisco, a protein, and photosynthetic rates cannot exceed that level, a plant's life cycle is not analogous to a candle, which will burn brighter and therefore shorter. if anything the maximal photosynthetic rate, a result of additional co2 will cause delayed blooming and a prolonged existence. As for your other statements, I cannot agree or disagree with them as i do not have enough information, but I cannot stand by and watch irresponsible or uninformed reporting of science. Physiologically what you described as a plant's reaction to increased co2 has never been validated in any tests in any journals and our knowledge of plant physiology simply does not allow your scenario to take place.

Global Warming or Global Cycling

I ordered this book amongst others some of whom take differing points of view. I am still gathering information. But, I can tell you that this book at least gives some balance to the basic hysteria that generally comes along with this topic.If we were all worrying about what to do about volcanos, what sort of discourse would we have? Could we have? Is it possible that this topic of global warming is no different? Those that point to near term data as a problem should learn that this trend did not start a few years ago but many, many before the industrial revolution...this is in spite of data that shows a nice trend line up over the past recent decades. Actually, both the temperature and CO2 have been very high and very low and very high again all without the help of GM, FORD or CON ED.This is certainly a complex subject and frankly other than reducing obvious sources of air pollution that are a different subset of worries and worth the effort, global warming is a political topic, not a scientific one.

Much needed balance

This book by Moore provides some much needed balance in the greenhouse debate. He does not claim to be a scientist, and provides a cursory, high-level examination of the science behind the issue, current up to the published date. He says that global warming is real, but nowhere near the catastrophic estimates often thrown about. This section of the book I found to be satisfactory, but lacking in hard data and citations. As a graduate student of Atmospheric Physics, I would have preferred more numbers.Aside from some vagueness and inconsistencies in pre-historical dates (which are mostly impossible to pinpoint anyway) the science is bang on. Although the climate is getting warmer, it is incorrect to assume that humans are the cause. The net anthropogenic effect on the atmospheric temperature is unknown. We can't say, with any degree of certainty, whether it is positive or negative. Although many well-educated people perceive greenhouse warming to be a problem, those closest to the issue (actually studying atmospheric radiative transfer) are reserving judgment. The public reaction to greenhouse alarms is probably due to the recent DDT and CFC scares. However, where alarm was needed for these issues, it is unnecessary and misguided when regarding the greenhouse issue.Most of the book is dedicated to an analysis of the situation from the perspective of an economist, which happens to be Moore's occupation. Longer growing seasons, more arable land in northern regions, and less energy expended on heating are three of the more obvious benefits.That Moore's book was published by the Cato Institute does not affect the science contained within. Proposed measures to limit CO2 emissions go against the Cato Institute's free market philosophy, so they clearly have an interest in opposing such measures. It is the very same as an environmental scientist, ecologist or a biologist without a clear understanding of atmospheric science raising alarms about global warming in an effort to maintain their funding. Personally, I don't care for the Cato Institute's capitalistic philosophies, but as long as the science is solid I see no valid reason to criticize a book simply because they publish it.

I know who will benefit from global warming...

No I have not read this book but I know that global warming will benefit all people of color. Therefore, you know who can be excluded. People of color can intake a rise in temperature therefore we can survive...and we do not have to more to another planet to keep from "an increase in temperature". (hint,hint)