Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming [Paperback]

Thomas Gale Moore (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 25, 1998 | ISBN-10: 1882577655 | ISBN-13: 978-1882577651 | Edition: 1

The book calls into question the entire campaign led by Vice President Al Gore and others to ratify the proposed treaty on global warming scheduled to be debated in the U.S. Senate early in 1998.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

"History and research support the proposition that a warmer climate is beneficial," writes Thomas Gale Moore in this socioeconomic analysis of the potential effects of global warming. Moore--once a member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers--is an economist, and thus wisely decides to focus on what might happen if global temperatures rise, rather than try to debunk the respected scientists who have concluded that they will. Using odd bits of historical and archaeological data (and the migration habits of modern retirees), Moore contends that warmer climates are good for humanity in terms of such things as technological advancement, life expectancy, and individual health. Moore's two meaningful points are that overall agricultural production is unlikely to suffer in a warmer world and that attempts to cut back on fossil fuel use now will be extremely, perhaps prohibitively, expensive. He says the best global-warming strategy is to maintain the status quo, continue research on climate, and help poor countries improve their economies. But his focus is extremely U.S.-centric, and his dismissal of the effects of even a few feet in sea level rise on, say, millions of Bangladeshis, is either purposefully naive or downright offensive. Climate of Fear isn't a rigorous examination of all sides of the global-warming controversy, but it provides an analysis of the potential economic consequences to the United States of implementing preventative measures.

Product Details

• Paperback: 152 pages
• Publisher: Cato Institute; 1 edition (March 25, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1882577655
• ISBN-13: 978-1882577651
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.8 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,172,746 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #23 in Books > 4-for-3 Books > Business & Investing > Economics > Natural Resources
  • #33 in Books > 4-for-3 Books > Business & Investing > Economics > Economic Policy & Development
  • #35 in Books > 4-for-3 Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Earth Sciences > Environmental Science

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars As a Botanist, I'm disturbed, March 15, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming (Paperback)

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.

24 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Much needed balance, March 20, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming (Hardcover)

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.

27 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Global Warming or Global Cycling, January 9, 2001

By 

Phil Baldwin, Jr. - See all my reviews

This review is from: Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming (Paperback)

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.