Rating: 
Summary: Washington Post Book World review
Review: "With Betrayal of Science and Reason, a book that is well-argued, thoroughly researched and compelling, [the Ehrlichs] bat back the positions taken by the increasingly prominent critics of environmental science and activism, and set the record straight on just how much damage industrial emissions, polluatants and synthetic products are doing to the environment....Betrayal is timely, readable and fresh. But above all it is necessary....With its thorough analysis, excellent source notes and long list of references to works by both the 'brownlashers' and their opponents, Betrayal is an indispensable resource for students and researchers of environmentalism. And for anyone interested in understanding the evolution of the natural environment and what they can do to stymie its decline, it is a must."--Washington Post Book World: October 27, 1996; front page revie
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent book
Review: A very enjoyable read. Take the negative reviews of this book with a grain of salt. It's pretty clear that only one of the five negative reviewers have even read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: A Devastating Rebuttal of the Brownlash
Review: As more and more people worldwide grow concerned about environmental problems, and have pressured governments to act on these problems, a countermovement has arisen, which claims that environmental problems are nonexistent, or at least exaggerated. Many claims of this "brownlash" movement are now common parts of public dialogue. Who hasn't heard views like these: "The US doesn't have a population problem--our population density is much less than countries like the Netherlands and they're doing all right." (Fact: the Netherlands can have a much higher population density since they import almost all their food, something obviously impossible for the whole world.) Or "Global warming is a myth. Satellite temperature records show the earth is actually cooling." (Fact: satellite temperature records are records of temperatures in the atmosphere, and cannot be directly compared with surface temperature records.)In this thoroughly researched book, biologists and environmentalists Paul and Anne Ehrlich refute the above arguments and many others like them that come from the brownlash movement. A reader of this book will reach the end far better informed about the very serious environmental problems this planet faces. If they are like me, they will also be appalled at the flagrant dishonesty of the brownlashers--people like Ronald Bailey, Gregg Easterbrook, Julian Simon, S. Fred Singer, Dixy Lee Ray and many others seem to have no limits to the lows of deception and misrepresentation they are willing to plumb. I highly recommend this book, especially to those who think that Dixy Lee Ray or Julian Simon are the last word on environmental problems.
Rating: 
Summary: Caution: Before you read this:
Review: Before you read this book, read the Ehrlich's other runaway best seller--The Population Bomb. See how many of its predictions came true, and then decide whether or not you can trust this book. The Ehrlichs are the "chicken littles" of the late 20th century, and are dangerously interfering with the progress of a serious scientific debate.
Rating:
Summary: A realistic perspective to environmental sustainability
Review: Environmental science is a heated and controversial subject. The Ehrlichs take on the anti-environmental "brownlash" full speed. They clearly separate the facts from the myths regarding the deterioration of our planet. Scientific evidence and common sense provide the basis for their perspectives on a number of worldwide environmental issues. This is not a book based on amateur, outlandish viewpoints. Paul and Anne Ehrlich have extensive background and experience in the field of environmentalism. They are clear to point out that scientific hypotheses should be based on fact and must change as the facts direct, contrary to the "brownlash." They simply take a real, holistic approach to encourage everyone to value their earth and surroundings.
Rating:
Summary: A realistic perspective to environmental sustainability
Review: Environmental science is a heated and controversial subject. The Ehrlichs take on the anti-environmental "brownlash" full speed. They clearly separate the facts from the myths regarding the deterioration of our planet. Scientific evidence and common sense provide the basis for their perspectives on a number of worldwide environmental issues. This is not a book based on amateur, outlandish viewpoints. Paul and Anne Ehrlich have extensive background and experience in the field of environmentalism. They are clear to point out that scientific hypotheses should be based on fact and must change as the facts direct, contrary to the "brownlash." They simply take a real, holistic approach to encourage everyone to value their earth and surroundings.
Rating:
Summary: A passionate account of man's assault on the biosphere
Review: Having read this marvellous book, I am inspired to become involved in the debate on scientific issues with a passion. Professors Ehrlich & Ehrlich clearly lay out the ways in which the planet's biotic and abiotic resources are being sold down the river, while many industries, politicians and a large sector of the media are perpetuating the myth that everything on Eden is fine. Calling these contrarians the "brownlash", the authors objectively argue that their aim is to maintain the business-as-usual ethic. As an ecologist, I am appalled at the backlash against the scientific community, and the attempts of the far right to demonize sound science in order to maintain short-term profits. I highly recommend this as reading for anyone concerned about the state of the environment, and who want to learn more about the ways in which certain extreme elements of society are attempting to downplay scientific research.
Rating: 
Summary: A curious book, to say the least
Review: I recommend this book, with reservations. My take on it is different than many of the reviews so far given. The Ehrlichs' role as among the first, most persistent, and most dire of environmental Cassandras is well known and need not be revisited now. The presently-reviewed book adds little to what they have previously said in terms of areas of concern. Rather, it appears to be a valedictory of sorts, where the Ehrlichs return their critics' responses in kind.
To my view, their response, although perhaps understandable, is ineffective as being too filled with slanted prose, hyperbole, and, unfortunately, outright name-calling. A more reasoned sort of response would have been highly preferable. The form of the message so obscures and detracts from its substance as to render both rather incredible. Also, the book is plagued with easily avoided errors. By way of a single chapter's example, the Ehrlichs contend, in their chapter on climate/global warming, that climate earlier than 1200AD is essentially unknowable because of a lack of record keeping. This is not so, as many methods, including varves, dendrochronology, ice-coring, etc., are available to do year-by-year studies. The Ehrlichs' statements and implications that warming is now more severe than at any time since the advent of the Holocene find no support. The xerothermic episode of the late 1200's that resulted in the demise of the Anasazi culture in the Southwest, and the desertification of much of Nebraska, occurred at this time. Of these, not a word. Likewise the Altithermal, or Climactic Optimum, of circa 4,000BC, or 6000BP, and not the present, has marked the warmest part of the Holocene. The Ehrlichs'refusal to bring these facts into the equation shows either a lack of research or a refusal to change a previously-desired impression. Neither, ACCORDING TO THE EHRLICHS IN THE SAME CHAPTER, is the mark of good or effective science. Other examples abound elsewhere, but space limits their discussion here. From a factual viewpoint, I cannot recommend this book to the serious scientific reader. However, the book is a prototypically good example of the causes of the troubles the Ehrlichs describe the environmental movement as facing. The skeptics decried by the Ehrlichs find their fuel in the Ehrlich style of crying wolf too often, and in the Ehrlichs' scientific inflexibility in the face of developing data that may be contrary to their earlier positions. Here, I need only cite the failure of their predictions in, "The Population Bomb." The upshot is that if Green proponents want to find how to lose status and credibility with those who are undecided, this book is a must-read. Contrariwise, if skeptics wish to determine why their own claims are subject to a healthy case of doubt, the Ehrlichs show them in many instances. Note carefully that I do not say the Ehrlichs are always wrong. They aren't, and a good deal of what they say is buttressed by fact, just not enough of it to be fully persuasive. I suspect that a more reasoned approach by the Ehrlichs would have resulted in a far more important book. The best way to dispel the confusion the Ehrlichs claim their opponents create is by reasoned, honest presentation, not name-calling, slanted prose, hyperbole, and disingenuous simile and metaphor. In closing, the book's only real value is to show each side of this important controversy the defects that plague their respective positions. Both sides should read the book with this goal in mind. Otherwise, a reading only serves the contrary purpose of reinforcing previously held biases. I recommend the book, but subject to the foregoing substantial cautions. A pity, because so much more could have been accomplished by a disciplined writer.
Rating:
Summary: Seeing the mote in another's eye
Review: I try to approach environmental books with an open mind, and I try to read seriously from both sides of the debate. The Ehrlich's book turned out to be a grave disappointment because they have a tendency to do exactly what they critize others of doing. In particular they spend too much time attacking the extreme statements of the "brownlash" books of a more popular nature instead of trying to discuss and refute the more serious criticisms of the various problems the world may be facing. I also tend to dislike their tendency to toot their own horn so much
Rating:
Summary: Why read such tripe ?
Review: I'll ignore for the moment that I've followed Mr.Ehrlich's writing for 3 decades and I find his arguments to have been poorly reasoned, based on doubtful information, to include vast overgeneralizations and to clearly be written for the purpose of sensationalizing potential disaster. The title of this current work should send shivers down the spine of anyone with an investment in intellectual freedom. Disputing contrary opinion using legitimate forms of argument is admirable, but instead labelling an opponents view as "rhetoric [that] threatens our future" is antithetic to the purpose of an open society. If opposing views, mere ideas, threaten our future how far can we be from book burnings and pogroms ? The suggestion that ideas threaten us is a closed minded anti-social statement that only appeals to the inherently bigoted. None of Mr. Ehrlich's numerous disaster scenarios for the planet is as probable as that people on each side of the environment issue will close their minds and cease to give respect and fair consideration to the views of the other. Without the concensus that can only come from open, respectful, thoughtful discussion of the issues there can be no action on the environmental problems of our day. In this way Paul Ehrlich as a polarizing dogmatist is much more part of the problem than part of any solution.
|
