What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming
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 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.
- GenresPolitics
152 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 30, 2024
A 1998 PROPOSAL FOR ‘DELAYING ACTION FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS”
Thomas Gale Moore is an emeritus senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “As an economist, I will not attempt to judge the argument over the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate. The contention that more of these gases will lead to warming seem plausible, but the magnitude of the change appears uncertain. Every few years the major forecasts of warming over the next century have been revised. This book assumes that warming may occur over the next hundred years and will focus, consequently, on evaluating the effects of possible changes in the climate and the costs of various strategies to slow any shifts in weather patterns… history and research support the proposition that a warmer climate is beneficial. Past warm periods have seen dramatic improvements in civilization and human well-being… Climate change will probably be small in tropical areas, so the population of equatorial regions will be largely unaffected.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “This book evaluates public policy options, especially those being supported by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and environmental organizations … the costs of acting must be weighed against the cost of continuing as normal… the stringency of such programs must be determined. Cost/benefit analysis constitutes the only rational approach… political powers … must reach an accord on the mechanisms and policies required… Such policies would be extraordinarily expensive and would be likely to cause large-scale dislocations, unemployment, and economic stagnation. For most people in the United States, Western Europe, Russia, and Japan, any climate change would probably be beneficial. A few poor countries that might suffer from rising sea levels or be unable to adjust their agriculture might suffer… it might be better to forego the controls and target aid to promoting their economic development …” (Pg. 6, 8)
He suggests, “Throughout history climatic changes probably forced technologically innovations and adaptation. The shift from warm periods into Ice Ages and back again likely accelerated the evolution of modern man. Each shift would have left small groups of hominids isolated and subject to pressures to adapt to new weather conditions. Those shifts… put strong selection pressure on the human forebears that ultimately led to modern man.” (Pg. 26)
He acknowledges, “warmer times brought benefits to most people and most regions, but not all… Change is disruptive; at the same time it produces new ideas and new ways of coping with the world. Nevertheless, for most of the known globe, the Little Climate Optimum of the 9th through the 13th centuries brought significant benefits to the local populations. Compared to the subsequent cooling, it was nirvana.” (Pg. 60) Later, he adds, “The optimal way to deal with potential climate change is … to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with any shift…” (Pg. 68)
Less presciently, he asserts, “Fear of killer heat waves appears exaggerated…if warming takes pace, people and housing will adapt; even if extended warm spells occur, mortality should not rise sharply. Moreover, the models and the evidence to date suggest that most of the warming will take place in the winter and at night. Consequently extreme heat events are unlikely to become much more common. Heat-stress does increate mortality; but it typically affects the old and infirm, whose lives may be shortened by a few days or perhaps a week. There is no evidence… that general mortality rises significantly. The numbers of heat-stress-related deaths are very small…” (Pg. 74)
He observes, “Most people would enjoy higher temperatures… Less cold weather would mean less snow shoveling, fewer days of driving on icy roads, lower heating bills, and reduced outlays for clothing.” (Pg. 95) Later, he adds, “Although I am a fervent skier… At worst, it would seem that climate warming would produce a transfer of benefits from skiing to other forms of recreational activities.” (Pg. 111)
He contends, “Being skeptical about the vital importance of maintaining every single species is tantamount to being against motherhood… so one is reluctant to question the importance of species diversity. Nevertheless, the usefulness of any one species … is probably low… Although people do like the concept of a globe inhabited by many different types of animals and plants, the value of any one or even many is not large in benefits provided to mankind… Their exaggerated veneration of each and every species leads to mistaken policy and needless expense.” (Pg. 100, 102)
He states, “the general public has not spent $160 million to preserve the [spotted] owl; the timber companies have had losses inflicted on them to save the redwood forests in which the owl lives. The $160 million reflects the estimated value of the timber that was not cut… In no way can it be argued that the voters decided that they would spend $160 million to preserve the spotted bird.” (Pg. 117)
He says, “it might be reasonable to conclude that a warmer, wetter world would boost fish yields… However, this assumption may be unwarranted. Nevertheless, fish can adapt by swimming to cooler or warmer water, so that effect should be small. Although there is some evidence that warmer sea temperatures can boost yields… I will assume no overall benefit from climate change.” (Pg. 126)
He asserts, “our leading newspapers and much political, environmental, and world leadership … urge that America adopt measures to reduce greenhouse gases… Hysteria rather than rationality has taken over our discourse. A steady drumbeat of propaganda is stampeding the county into an unwise, expensive course.” (Pg. 129)
He says of the Kyoto Agreement, “[Congress] will have major problems with this agreement… its exclusion of China, India, and Brazil will badly hurt American industry and many manufacturing jobs will be exported… The Kyoto agreement entails forecasts of future greenhouse gas emissions. But … Economists are poor soothsayers and often over- or under-estimate growth… We can project… that future generations will have better technology … They will certainly be in a better position to deal with any adverse changes in the climate than is mankind today… The Kyoto agreement is futile…” (Pg. 142-143)
He concludes, “policymakers must weigh the costs of acting to slow greenhouse gas emissions against the costs of maintaining current policy… delaying action by 20 to 30 years appears to be the only truly prudent… policy. Technology will advance. Incomes in Third World countries will multiply. The world will be more capable of coping with change, whatever vicissitudes may occur… the Congress should stand fast against any steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions.” (Pg. 156-157)
Although Moore made it to ‘Emeritus’ status at the Hoover Institution by our delays in acting, recent trends do not bode well for those of us who hope to live for more than another decade or two, or who have children and grandchildren about whom we are concerned.
Thomas Gale Moore is an emeritus senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “As an economist, I will not attempt to judge the argument over the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate. The contention that more of these gases will lead to warming seem plausible, but the magnitude of the change appears uncertain. Every few years the major forecasts of warming over the next century have been revised. This book assumes that warming may occur over the next hundred years and will focus, consequently, on evaluating the effects of possible changes in the climate and the costs of various strategies to slow any shifts in weather patterns… history and research support the proposition that a warmer climate is beneficial. Past warm periods have seen dramatic improvements in civilization and human well-being… Climate change will probably be small in tropical areas, so the population of equatorial regions will be largely unaffected.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “This book evaluates public policy options, especially those being supported by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and environmental organizations … the costs of acting must be weighed against the cost of continuing as normal… the stringency of such programs must be determined. Cost/benefit analysis constitutes the only rational approach… political powers … must reach an accord on the mechanisms and policies required… Such policies would be extraordinarily expensive and would be likely to cause large-scale dislocations, unemployment, and economic stagnation. For most people in the United States, Western Europe, Russia, and Japan, any climate change would probably be beneficial. A few poor countries that might suffer from rising sea levels or be unable to adjust their agriculture might suffer… it might be better to forego the controls and target aid to promoting their economic development …” (Pg. 6, 8)
He suggests, “Throughout history climatic changes probably forced technologically innovations and adaptation. The shift from warm periods into Ice Ages and back again likely accelerated the evolution of modern man. Each shift would have left small groups of hominids isolated and subject to pressures to adapt to new weather conditions. Those shifts… put strong selection pressure on the human forebears that ultimately led to modern man.” (Pg. 26)
He acknowledges, “warmer times brought benefits to most people and most regions, but not all… Change is disruptive; at the same time it produces new ideas and new ways of coping with the world. Nevertheless, for most of the known globe, the Little Climate Optimum of the 9th through the 13th centuries brought significant benefits to the local populations. Compared to the subsequent cooling, it was nirvana.” (Pg. 60) Later, he adds, “The optimal way to deal with potential climate change is … to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with any shift…” (Pg. 68)
Less presciently, he asserts, “Fear of killer heat waves appears exaggerated…if warming takes pace, people and housing will adapt; even if extended warm spells occur, mortality should not rise sharply. Moreover, the models and the evidence to date suggest that most of the warming will take place in the winter and at night. Consequently extreme heat events are unlikely to become much more common. Heat-stress does increate mortality; but it typically affects the old and infirm, whose lives may be shortened by a few days or perhaps a week. There is no evidence… that general mortality rises significantly. The numbers of heat-stress-related deaths are very small…” (Pg. 74)
He observes, “Most people would enjoy higher temperatures… Less cold weather would mean less snow shoveling, fewer days of driving on icy roads, lower heating bills, and reduced outlays for clothing.” (Pg. 95) Later, he adds, “Although I am a fervent skier… At worst, it would seem that climate warming would produce a transfer of benefits from skiing to other forms of recreational activities.” (Pg. 111)
He contends, “Being skeptical about the vital importance of maintaining every single species is tantamount to being against motherhood… so one is reluctant to question the importance of species diversity. Nevertheless, the usefulness of any one species … is probably low… Although people do like the concept of a globe inhabited by many different types of animals and plants, the value of any one or even many is not large in benefits provided to mankind… Their exaggerated veneration of each and every species leads to mistaken policy and needless expense.” (Pg. 100, 102)
He states, “the general public has not spent $160 million to preserve the [spotted] owl; the timber companies have had losses inflicted on them to save the redwood forests in which the owl lives. The $160 million reflects the estimated value of the timber that was not cut… In no way can it be argued that the voters decided that they would spend $160 million to preserve the spotted bird.” (Pg. 117)
He says, “it might be reasonable to conclude that a warmer, wetter world would boost fish yields… However, this assumption may be unwarranted. Nevertheless, fish can adapt by swimming to cooler or warmer water, so that effect should be small. Although there is some evidence that warmer sea temperatures can boost yields… I will assume no overall benefit from climate change.” (Pg. 126)
He asserts, “our leading newspapers and much political, environmental, and world leadership … urge that America adopt measures to reduce greenhouse gases… Hysteria rather than rationality has taken over our discourse. A steady drumbeat of propaganda is stampeding the county into an unwise, expensive course.” (Pg. 129)
He says of the Kyoto Agreement, “[Congress] will have major problems with this agreement… its exclusion of China, India, and Brazil will badly hurt American industry and many manufacturing jobs will be exported… The Kyoto agreement entails forecasts of future greenhouse gas emissions. But … Economists are poor soothsayers and often over- or under-estimate growth… We can project… that future generations will have better technology … They will certainly be in a better position to deal with any adverse changes in the climate than is mankind today… The Kyoto agreement is futile…” (Pg. 142-143)
He concludes, “policymakers must weigh the costs of acting to slow greenhouse gas emissions against the costs of maintaining current policy… delaying action by 20 to 30 years appears to be the only truly prudent… policy. Technology will advance. Incomes in Third World countries will multiply. The world will be more capable of coping with change, whatever vicissitudes may occur… the Congress should stand fast against any steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions.” (Pg. 156-157)
Although Moore made it to ‘Emeritus’ status at the Hoover Institution by our delays in acting, recent trends do not bode well for those of us who hope to live for more than another decade or two, or who have children and grandchildren about whom we are concerned.
November 13, 2024
genuinely one of the worst excuses for "nonfiction" i've ever read. between misleading phrasing, cherry-picked statistics, and outright lies, it's an embarrassment to the literary and scientific communities alike that this was ever published.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews