[.ca] Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming (ISBN 1882577655)

From Amazon.com:
"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.

More contrarian (= cold) science on show here:
I wrote a review for the Ronald Bailey et al. ignominious epic, "Earth Report 2000", which paints the same, optimistic, "leave the environment in the hands of multinational corporations and all will be fine with the world" picture as this tome. I am employed as a senior scientist in ecology in the Netherlands, and for the past year I have been exploring interactions between above- and below ground pathogens, herbivores, and their natural enemies. I have also been examining how processes, which are largely deterministic over large spatial and temporal scales, are mediated by largely stochastic (unpredictable) interactions amongst organisms occurring over much smaller scales. In other words, how is the processing of information, nutrients, and materials in ecosystems dependent upon the activities of individual organisms. The essential truth is that, at present, our understanding of the link between micro-evolutionary characteristics of communities and larger scale ecosystem processes is rudimentary at best. How many species do we need to maintain the integrity of ecosystems? We don't know. Which species are the most important? We know this only completely. How much can systems be broken down in size and still function effectively? We don't know. These questions are at the heart of my profession, yet we live in very uncertain times when we - humanity - are conducting a huge, single experiment on our own life support systems. The importance of my research and that of my colleagues is that we have to put our findings within the context of global change: humanity is simplifying natural ecosystems worldwide with staggering and alarming efficiency, and yet it is these same systems which generate the conditions upon which we are utterly dependent for our existence. Emergent properties from ecosystems generate the services which nurture life and humanity: these include, purification of air and water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, control of insect and other pests through predation, generation and preservation of soils and renewal of their fertility, pollination, dispersal of seeds, and partial control of climate. There is no technological substitute for these services - if they were to be traded on economic markets they would be literally worth trillions of dollars, but because they are "externalized" in cost-pricing scenarios, they are therefore underappreciated by society. Yet our existence hinges on the free-flow of these services. Why do I say this here? Because Moore, someone who has utterly no understanding of these processes, has the audacity to write a book preaching the benefits of climate change without bothering to consider that they will also effect changes upon the systems which permit our survival. This is something at which many of the climate-change advocates are ignorant, while they focus on two-dimensional (linear) projections of climate change on society. Their simple answer is: "its going to be warmer, which will extend the growing season, reduce winter heating costs, and thus benefit human society". The reality is very, very different. Ecosystems and the speices within them are already facing innumerable human-induced stresses, over landscapes which have been plowed, paved, dredged, dammed, drained, slashed and burned, logged, fragmented, doused in toxic chemicals, and thus reduced greatly. Climate change is just another potential nail in the coffin. Given that the rate of climate change is far greater than in at least 160,000 years, and that organisms are having to adapt to already profoundly stressed conditions, many will not be able to adapt quickly enough and will perish. Since organisms do not exist in isolation in nature - they interact - the loss of many species dooms very many more. Peter Raven, at the Missouri Botanical Garden, estimates that for the loss of a single species of tropical plant, at least 30 (or more) species which depended on that plant species will also disappear. The main point is that the large scale biotic holocaust already underway will only be exacerbated by climate change. So where is Moore's evidence that climate change will not effect natural communities? He provides none. There is plenty of empirical research suggesting that global warming, at current rates at least, is disrupting entire biological communities by de-synchronizing multiple-species interactions. In other words, some species respond better than others, but due to mutual dependencies the better-adapted species disappear anyway, because they may lose access to their prime resources or else phenological timing is disrupted. There is also more recent evidence suggesting that differences in climate change over variable geographical (and seasonal) scales is having a disruptive effect over the breeding success of tropical migrant birds. These studies are emerging from a relatively new area in science, but they paint a very worrying picture. And to reiterate - Moore, whose science is non-existent, neither understands nor cares to understand the impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems. Sadly, the libertarian think-tanks also continue to reel out this trash, simply as a means of confusing the public over a matter of considerable contemporary importance. In propounding this anti-scientific rhetoric, people like Moore really have no understanding of what is at stake.

Ignore The Alarmists -- Find Out For Yourself:
I have been following "global warming" for over 15 years and am dismayed by alarmists who have very little regard for real science. Most of them, like some previous reviewers of this book, are merely jumping on a (popular) bandwagon -- they have done very little research themselves. The least accurate studies (ground-based and ocean-based) are showing mixed (!) results, with the majority supporting slight warming. By the way, have you noticed how they keep REDUCING their projections? Maybe in 20 years, they will have reduced their projections enough that they match reality. The next most accurate are weather balloon studies, which do not show warming. This data is referred to less often than the other groups. The most accurate are satellite studies which actually show cooling. Yes, COOLING. You'll notice that the alarmists ignore that data. They will say something like, well look at all this other data. So? Who cares how much data you have if all of it is junk? Some say that resource-wasting corporations are behind the non-global-warming data. Not quite, but let's allow that for the moment. Who is behind the global-warming data? Government programs who want to stay alive (i.e., receive funding) and tell their researchers to find global warming (or they get shut down). Guess what. They "find" global warming. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. This book provides a different perspective -- maybe global warming will be good for us. Some enticing theories, but I'm not sure I buy them (still doing more research). I gave the book 4 stars because of a lack of substantial data, but would give it 5 stars for presentation and concept.

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.

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.

An additional comment to my review:
Out of curiosity, I recently checked the Cato Institute's annual report, and indeed Chevron, Exxon, Amoco, Unocal, and the American Petroleum Institute were among its sponsors the year this book was published.