Customer Reviews

Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This book should be essential reading in the curriculum of all undergraduate biology classes. However, I should initially say that it is patently obvious that none of the readers below who have attacked the book or the authors have even bothered to read it, to digest its message, and to evaluate the significance of its content. At present, a largely uninformed society is being bombarded with more anti-environmental rhetoric than at any time in human history, in books, magazine articles, by right-wing radio show pundits, on television, and, more recently, over the internet, and we have to ask ourselves, why.

Like Paul and Anne, I am a senior scientist, an ecologist, whose research focuses on understanding the link between micro-evolutionary, largely 'stochastic' processes occurring over small scales, and emergent, homeostatic poperties, operating at much larger spatial and temporal scales. Consider that our species is simplifying natural systems worldwide with staggering and worrying efficiency, through the combined activities of paving, ploughing, damming, dredging, slashing and burning, logging, dousing in persistent organic pollutants, alteration the carbon and nitrogen cycles, co-opting much of primary production, and ultimately threatening the sustainability of systems upon which we are utterly dependent for our survival.

Whether we like to admit it or not, ecosystems and the species they contain generate the conditions which nurture life and humanity, though the services the freely provide us. But, in this world of wounds, we - the ecological community - have barely begun to understand the stupendous complexity underpinning the continuation and existence of these natural systems, and therefore we have no real idea how much they can be reduced in size before they begin to break down, and fail to generate the life-sustaining services which permit our existence.

Now, contrast our uncertainty as to the outcome of the planetary "experiment" humanity is conducting on its own life-support systems with the wholly anti-scientific rhetoric being generated from a number of generally right wing, corporate-funded think tanks, political idealogues and public relations firms. Employing a variety of tactics, they are attempting to manipulate public opinion, as well as that of policy makers, to deflect from the real need for societal and corporate reform, in essence to maintain a "business-as-usual" mentality while our planet slides gradually but inexorably towards ecological catastrophe. The aim is simple: to ensure corporate profit maximisation through the prevention of sensible regulations being implemented to protect public health and the environment. This tactic, of course, can only succeed if the public perceives environmental issues as being of secondary importance to other issues. In effect, they are "lobbying for lethargy", and sadly, this strategy is succeeding.

I haven't the time nor the space here to elucidate upon the myriad of ways in which the "brownlash", as the Ehrlich's aptly call it, are manipulating science to provide a pre-determined outcome, but this book does a better job than I ever could. However, let me point out that Paul and Anne make an outstanding point of expanding upon the areas in which the scientific community is in broad agreement. There is consensus over the effects of humanity in perturbing the biogeochemistry of carbon and nitrogen cycles, which operate over stupendously large scales. These effects are manifested through changes not only in global climate patterns, but also in eutrophication of the biosphere. There is also consensus amongst our peers over the effects that humanity is having on land cover, through some of the processes that I discussed earlier. I should again reiterate that none of these areas are in dispute amongst our colleagues around the world. None. What we cannot accurately predict with any certainty at present is the effects that these changes will have on natural ecosystems. There will be ecological consequences, but we cannot, with any degree of statitical certainty, say exactly what these will be. However, given our limited understanding of ecosystem functioning, they are likely to be severe, and will not only have direct effects upon human society but will exacerbate the current extinction episode currently underway. Although ecosystems undeniably exhibit some resilience to human-inflicted change, even at current rates, there is no guarantee that they will be so resilient in delivering to us the free flow of services upon which we depend.

For their part, the contrarians are not taking this consensus lying down, and have attempted, deviously in my view, to apply the principle of uncertainty over the outcome of processes that we know are occurring to describe the entire process itself, thereby rendering mute any public and political will to address these problems. Through greenwashing, aggressive mimicry, scapegoating and cynicism, the voices of a few dissident, bought-and-paid for scientists are being blown out of all proportion to create the image that issues such as species extinction rates, global warming and ozone depletion are broadly disputed amongst the scientific community, whereas they are not. As the authors correctly observe, there may not be many contrarians out there amongst our peers but their paymasters have bought them veritable megaphones.

Ignore the reviews of those who haven't actually read the book - their minds were made up long ago - and read the volumes of peer-reviewed scientific evidence the Ehrlichs use to counter the brownlash.

This book lines out important scientific findings about critical environmental problems such as global warming and dwindling bio-diversity. It carefully unravels the irrational "reasoning" of those who don't want to see what's wrong with the excesses of carbon dioxide and other factors that are likely to lead to major famines and economic instability. I have read a dozen books on the environment in the last few months. Although there are a number of very good ones, this is my favorite.

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??

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.

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.

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.

Paul Ehrlich has done a thorough job outlining the Corporate Assault on scientific findoings that would challenge their "rights" to make profits at community expense. This book makes a good companion volume to Sharon Bader's "Global Spin" and Naomi Klein's "No Logo"

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.

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

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.