This is a set of papers written by Stigler in his marvelous career. It is divided into 5 parts: I. Contributions to economics; 2. contributions to political economics; 3. contributions to industrial organization; 4. history of economic thought; 5. the wit of George Stigler.

It is very difficult to gather all these 23 articles in only one place. The book is worth because you can find a bunch of deep knowledge.

Enjoy the book, revisit old ideas very clear and well written, and perhaps get other ones.

from the recent report of the National Academy of Science Committee on Climate Change: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century."

from the same report:

"Some models project an increased tendency toward drought over semi-arid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains. Hydrologic impacts could be significant over the western United States,where much of the water supply is dependent on the amount of snow pack and the timing of the spring runoff."

but don't worry! be happy!

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.

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.