Rating: 
Summary: Propaganda disguised as science
Review: If Dr. Ehrlich wants to know who has been most responsible for discrediting the environmental movement, he should stop blaming the Right and take a good look in the mirror. I read his earlier work "The Population Bomb" as a kid in the 70's, and was deeply alarmed by his predictions of imminent catastrophe and highly motivated by his call to take drastic steps to avert it. Well, guess what? None of it came to pass. As an adult, I can now recognize how easily I was suckered in by radical environmental demagoguery masquerading as objective science. The end result is that Ehrlich and his fellow doom-meisters have discredited themselves with their ideologically driven alarmist rhetoric, when a more fair minded and even handed approach would have maintained their credibility. It's little wonder that Rush Limbaugh is seen by many as having as much credibility on environmental issues as the so-called "experts" like Dr. Ehrlich. The fault isn't with Rush, who is a political opinionist who makes no bones about his partisan biases, but rather with people like Ehrlich who were willing to wrap their own ideological biases in the mantle of "science", with the end result being that science itself (especially as it relates to environmental issues) ended up with serious credibility problems.
Rating:
Summary: Same old rhetoric to justify his funding (dubious)
Review: In 1980 Julian L. Simon (State of Humanity, Ultimate Resource 2, et al) wrote exasperatedly in an article that he was sick and tired of environmentalists' insistence that large-scale natural starvation was right around the corner. He invited them to put their money where their mouths were.Paul Ehrlich, influential author of The Population Bomb and predictor of worldwide famine and resource scarcity for the 1980s, stepped up to the plate. Simon invited Ehrlich and any of his colleagues to choose any five non-government-controlled resources, purchase $1000 worth in any combination, and specify a later date. If the resource bundle went up in price (implicating that they had become more scarce), then Simon would have to pay the difference. If they went down in price, signifying greater abundance, then Simon would receive the difference. Ehrlich and company jumped at this proposition, writing that they were looking forward to cashing in 'before other greedy people see this opportunity.' They chose five heavy metals used as inputs for industry, and specified ten years as the time to wait. And thus it occurred that Ehrlich and his colleagues wrote a check to Julian Simon for $576.80 in 1990. When Ehrlich claimed that it was a fluke, Simon offered to repeat the bet on the same terms, with a new bundle and a new time period. Ehrlich refused, and no one ever stepped up to take his place. If you are proven wrong more than once, why not admit that something is wrong and re-evaluate your assumptions - that's the nature of being a scientist and rational thinking human being. Re-read some of Ehrlich's earlier books to find out how consistently wrong he has been over the past 30 years and how he just doesn't change his tune and attacks (the admittedly ridiculous) straw men positions instead of looking at the underlying facts more dispassionately. What does this tell you about the theories and the man? Read Julian Simon instead (or maybe as well if you want to see how off base Ehrlich really is).
Rating: 
Summary: Essential reading for thinking, caring humans
Review: In an age where Rush Limbaugh can sway millions with emotion-charged arguments based on misinterpretation of facts, this book should be required reading. The authors--both scientists-- present the environmental facts, and the scientific community's consensus interpretation of the facts, in unambiguous and unequivocal terms. These facts just plain refute just about everything Rush and his kind have ever said about the state of the environment. Thank God for reason. Let's hope it's not too late. The book's only shortcoming is that the people who need to read it most--average citizens--probably won't make it through because of its technical/scientific content and level of difficulty. So I am worried that the Erlichs are preaching to the saved. Perhaps a TV special on this topic would reach more of the critical audience??
Rating:
Summary: And yet the myth of overpopulation....
Review: P. Erlich is one of the members of the league of the profets of disgrace, people that earn money (in general, a lot of money) by telling that this and that catastrophe is going to happen. His favourite one is "overpopulation". That myth is more than dead and, in fact, people are beggining to be concern about quite the opposite, underpopulation. Read instead the great "The Ultimate Resource 2" by Julian Simon!
Rating:
Summary: Reason and Motives
Review: Paul and Ann Ehrlich have devoted their lives to promoting environmental understanding and influencing government policy. They have endured the scrutiny of their detractors with respect to dire predictions concerning population growth and the environment. They have made mistakes-- the most famous being their ill-conceived wager against Julian Simon concerning resource depletion. Many dismissed them out of hand after that debacle-- a testament to the human tendency towards oversimplification with regard to environmental understanding (Dr. Simon, as well, made rather absurd conclusions about humanity and the planet, which the Ehrlichs address in the book). Despite what some have concluded, Paul Ehrlich is still a highly respected professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the United States (Stanford University). He and his wife, a prominent researcher in her own rite, continue accepting invitations to lecture at colleges and conventions around the world. The book Paul and Ann have written, expresses the passion with which they've espoused their cause. Indeed, it is a passion that should be equaled by all the planet's inhabitants, whether we agree with the Ehrlichs or not. Yet one need only to take a quick look at the Internet to find the antagonistic nature of many so-called "environmental" websites-- something the Ehrlichs refer to as "brown-lash." Many are portrayed as "green" or "earth-friendly," yet dismissive of any suggestion that humankind has desecrated the earth. Arguments, as noted by the Ehrlichs, range from dismissing the global warming phenomenon completely, to claims that such phenomenon is even beneficial to humankind (the current trend seems to be towards the latter, since arguing against global warming itself is becoming, less and less, a valid point). Statistics are presented out of context and often misrepresented as conclusive. Indeed, even some scientists have been fooled by the seemingly authoritative nature of some "anti-environmentalist" literature (though it should be noted that the scientific community, by and large, agrees with both the theory of global warming, and its human related causes). As well, a few scientists operating outside the mainstream, such as Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer, seem motivated by the large salaries offered to them by multi-million dollars corporations with economic interests at stake regarding environmental regulation. Michaels is the primary authority on the CO2 and Climate Change website, superficially sponsored by the Greening Earth Society, which is, in turn, funded by the Western Fuels Association. The "laundering" of website sponsorship further adds to the confusion concerning ulterior motives. Other "editorializers," such as Rush Limbaugh or Michael Fumento, routinely sway public opinion by incompetently interpreting scientific data and essentially indulging in name-calling. While their authority should be dismissed as sheer demagoguery at best, their influence over their radio listeners and column subscribers should not be ignored. The Ehrlichs make a point that much has been done by way of regulating and improving the environment, but it will always be an uphill battle. In their words, "It's like trying to run up an escalator that's going down." The most easily perceived indicators of environmental health are air and water, yet few realize the other multifarious indicators which are just as important to humankind and the environment. It is a truism that one should not judge a detractor by his or her affiliation alone, but rather address each particular argument in kind-- praising its merits or debunking its fallacies. One's ideology is best judged in the words and theories they express, not the labels they've been assigned. This applies to the Ehrlichs and their detractors as well. Betrayal of Science and Reason is a must read for anyone concerned about the effects of political spin upon the future of the environment. While "brown-lashing" attempts to succeed in confounding the truth contemporaneously, nature, in time, will offer irrefutable proof of its own-- how soon we heed the warnings will determine how adversely our world is affected.
Rating:
Summary: There he goes again.
Review: Paul Ehrlich has zero creditability. No wonder he is 'mad' and 'full of rage'. Science and Reason keep getting in the way of his religious beliefs about the environment. You would think that he would just be quiet out of a sense of shame. Read it for the laughs.
Rating:
Summary: There he goes again.
Review: Paul Ehrlich has zero creditability. No wonder he is 'mad' and 'full of rage'. Science and Reason keep getting in the way of his religious beliefs about the environment. You would think that he would just be quiet out of a sense of shame. Read it for the laughs.
Rating:
Summary: How does this guy face himself in the morning?
Review: Paul Erlich with his bomb "Population Bomb" has already established himself as one of the biggest fools in the history of the planet. Apparently, he is going for the title and this book is a big step in that direction. As they say, an "expert" is one who doesn't know that he doesn't know anything.
Rating: 
Summary: This is just a stupid book
Review: People who like this book need to stop listening to scientists: when have they EVER been right about anything? I also think scientists like the Ehrlichs who rely on public funding are only trying to further their agenda, and we should instead listen to pseudo-scientists who tell us everything is going to be ok... especially when they are usually funded by large companies who care so deeply about the environment. Bury your head in the sand... go read Julian Simon. Just because he worked for the Heritage Foundation doesn`t mean he was biased.
Rating:
Summary: If you care about our environment, read the book.
Review: This book is packed with succinct responses to the rampant anti-environmental rhetoric. For the layperson who cares about the seeming destruction of the environment, while constantly hearing that "things aren't so bad", it's a breath of fresh air. The Ehrlichs clearly communicate what scientists know about the effects of human activity on our biosphere. (Footnotes are thoughtfully included.) Essential reading for the science-minded person.
| 
