Rating: 
Summary: Unwanted truths
Review: A cursory reading of the available (negative) comments to this piece of literature will reveal that research which criticizes the common environmentalist dogma is not recieved well. Preparing for slaughter some of the holy cows of "leftist environmentalism" is always met with an enraged outcry. In the eyes of your average environmentalist, the book does not support the preferred truth, and as such it must betrashed with a miserable rating. The author has dared question the most cherish beliefs of the "green wing", and for that he must be denounced as a puppet of BIG BUSINESS. All the usual ammo are brought forth - how the author is really an uncaring "rightwinger", how he is twisting and omitting facts to suit an anti-environmentalist agenda, and how he is generally a Bad Person (tm).On a more serious note, this book is necessary and important to read because it dares to deal a blow to the mindless "environmentalist" dogma which is so common in this day and age. What is important to grasp in the environmental context is that if the greens are allowed to propagate their opinions without qualified critique, we run the risk that the real problems with the environment are ignored, while the apparent problems that are blown into the public sphere by help of the many heavy buzzwords steal the show. And if that happens (which most indication point at at the moment), then the environment will be the true loser, despite the fact that it has recieved so much attention. The superficial problems will recieve priority and the killers will go unnoticed. By shooting down this book on the sole basis that is offers an uncomfortable truth, the environmentalists have in reality become their own worst enemy. In regards to the book - read it to get a piercing view of the "environmental problems" that you most likely will not get from regular mainstream media. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Forget the "prophets of doom" just search for truth....
Review: and it's becoming easier to search for truth with the emergence of a brave group of people who are not afraid to go against the status quo and ask us to look beyond the sensational headlines and political correctness of the so called "green movement". From global warming to biotech food to chemicals, Ronald Bailey and the Competitive Enterprise Institute risk a lot by going against "conventional wisdom" and asking us to re-examine some of the hottest topics in the headlines today. Well researched and written so even a lay person like myself can understand it, this is a don't miss book for anyone who wants to stop being scared all the time because some "green" group or bureaucracy needs to keep the public in a state of anxiety in order to survive financially. The greatest payoff from reading the book? I find that I feel much better about the state of the planet and things do not seem so hopeless. Thanks CEI and Ronald Bailey.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: As a climatologist myself, I believe this book does a wonderful job of disputing the ideas paraded as "fact" in our world. The environmentalists latch onto anything that might advance their agenda. At the same time they denounce anything, which suggests they are wrong, as the product of either reactionaries or "industry."
Rating: 
Summary: based on an agenda, not science
Review: Bailey's credentials are as flimsy as the facts behind this ridiculous volume. Anyone who thinks improving the environment for future generations is a political issue deserves to waste money on this book.
Rating:
Summary: half truths & omissions
Review: Bashes the looney left and popular misconceptions about environmental issues. Embraces the rabid right with polyanna conclusions that past successes guarentees future successes. Skips the truth in between, which is a heck of a lot more complex. Similar to Bjorn Lomberg's collection of half truths, which focuses on the facts that support his political position, and conveniently leaves those that rebut it. Sure, it's been well known in the scientific community that an Antarctic meltdown would take centuries, and there seems to be an increase in the ice cap OVER the land. But it is also true that the oceanic ice shelves are breaking up and melting, with likely negative effects on the ecosystem. It's also known that the arctic icecap has thinned by about 40%, with much, much less summer sea ice. Western fertility rates where never the question for folks like Ehrlich, club of Rome, etc., and it is deceiptfull to use them to bash concerns about over population. Non-western fertility rates have indeed fallen dramatically, but it is still highly uncertain if they will fall enough to avoid future catastrophes. (E.g.: the Hutu vs Tutsi genocidal conflicts in Africa was more due to over population & limited resources, than ancient frictions). Last century, potatoes were the wonder crop of Ireland, supporting a massive population boom. By relying on the most productive agri-tech (i.e., a certain type of potato), Ireland was left vulnerable. Focusing on our current successes while ignoring the vulnerabilities and limitations will just as surely lead to future disasters. Consider the following bait & switch arguement from the review:
Myth: Solar- and wind-powered generators are a renewable, efficient, and less intrusive alternative to gas-, oil-, and coal-burning generators
Fact: Global fossil fuel supplies are in no near-term danger of being depleted, and a single 555-megawatt natural gas power plant produces more electricity than 13,000 windmills So where's the contradiction? Both statements can be true! It is true (but unstated) that clean energy technology is often cheaper than fossil fuels in many applications. E.g., it's often cheaper to install, say, solar panels on roof tops than to build power transmission lines (especially in sunny areas). E.g., wind power has fallen in price from >$0.30/kwhr down to about $0.05/kwhr since the 70's and often competes favorably for generating peak load electricity. --but is often discouraged in the market place because of tax disincentives and other structural barriers. Fossil fuels on the other hand may still be abundant, but we are definitely using up the large & cheap supplies and running out of places to look for new sources. Even Saudi Arabia will soon see their production costs rise from $2/barrell to >$4/barrell. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that we can rarely rely on the solutions of yesterday for the problems of tomorrow, and fossil fuels clearly fit into that category. Or consider: Myth: Modern pesticides and fertilizers are increasing the rates of cancer in humans Fact: No study has ever shown that anyone has developed cancer from the legal application of pesticides, and environmental pollution accounts for at most 2 percent of all cancer cases versus 30 percent caused by tobacco use LEGAL applications? How convenient a way to ignore the fact agricultural workers do indeed have higher cancer rates (NB: not for all cancer lumped together, but for certain types of cancer) Example: recent studies have associated DDT with lower birth weight babies (why recent? They haven't looked before). Extrapolating from the data, it could be that up to 10% of infant deaths in the USA could have been due to DDT exposure during the heyday of DDT use. But since the banning of DDT is a past success, and DDT has no strong linkage to human cancer, it doesn't count for the authors. And on and on it goes. Books like this ignore the real problems by focusing on wacko misconceptions, and just generate new & opposing misconceptions.......
Rating:
Summary: Fact checking the fact checker
Review: Charles J Smith "CJS" - check YOUR facts. There are windmills operational that produce as little as 400W (that's watts, not kilowatts or megawatts). If you had used these models in your argument, you could have said that the authors hugely understated the number of windmills, by a factor of about 100!
The quote was in reference to the operating windmills in California. The California Energy Commission states at least 13000 wind turbines on the overview page, but lists 11572 (2001) in its Wind Performance report. According to this report, there was 1548.95 MW of capacity in 2001, or an average of .13 MW per turbine. This is about 3x of the book's stated claim, but a far cry from what you deduce it to be. If you check the report, you will find that California has NO wind turbines produced by GE and NONE producing more than 1MW.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html
While you can still argue that the book is still wrong on this fact (or maybe I have neglected some additional information included by the author), you are more wrong. Check your facts please and stick to reviewing the book. On to my review...
Excellent book. One of my most often "you should read this" books that I pass on to friends. I should buy multiple copies just for this purpose. Environmental issues, in particular global warming, is being pursued on both sides by big money. This book shines a light on the environmental myths that have been spun by the greens and the media and have settled into conventional wisdom. If you are an environmentalist, as I am, do yourself a favor and buy the book and take an honest look at the other side.
I would normally have rated this a 4 star but am giving it 5 stars to balance out Chuck's lame "review".
Rating:
Summary: Get Ready for the Truth
Review: Flat out, this book provides more evidence for the other side of the environmental coin that one can imagine. As an avid reader of the science magazines (you know, the few periodicals that have no politial bias) I can tell you that this book is firmly backed by their data as well. If you like information steeped in evidence and research this book is for you. If you prefer to base your decisions on emotion, this will be a deep disappointment. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to cut through the tripe handed out by the press who loves to sell papers and cares little about reality.
Rating: 
Summary: Short-sighted
Review: Global warming is the subject in only one of the twelve chapters in this book. Other chapters are on pesticides, water wars, bioengineering, the concept of sustainable (or "sustained") development, crop yields, etc. The spirit of the book can perhaps be taken from Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who wrote the chapter entitled, "Feeding a World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead." The "Miracle Ahead" in Borlaug's title and his enthusiasm for feeding ten billion people are typical of the optimistic tone throughout. I would prefer that we not have ten billion people to feed, but that is another argument based on my belief that we should leave room for substantial agrarian and wild spaces on the planet and that we should keep alive in their natural habitats as many of our fellow creatures as is reasonably possible, and that such resources are of inestimable value. The authors of this book are not much concerned with life other than as it relates to the short-term economic welfare of the human species. This brings us to the question, what are they concerned with? Why are they arguing so vehemently against almost any sort of restraint on economic growth? Why are they not concerned about how many humans may occupy the planet? The answer: they know that poor and disadvantaged humans are needed to work at subsistence wages in order that others (themselves, their friends, and their children) may enjoy a high standard of living. One of the most important environmental trends during the last century NOT noted in this book is the movement of poor people from less developed countries to Europe and the United States. These people gladly leave the lands of their births, many crossing borders illegally, to take on the lowest paying jobs in our economies. Without these eager workers we would all be less well off. Consequently the authors want to continue to be able to exploit not only the environment to the fullest, they want to be able to exploit a ready supply of human labor as well. This is why they do not argue against the dangers of overpopulation and belittle those that do. They want a substantial number of poor people in the world. But philosophic and moral issues aside, is global warming an "eco-myth"? First, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since the levels were first measured, especially during the last century. Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that is, it allows the sun's heat to penetrate to the surface of the planet but prevents heat from escaping. Third, the overall temperature of the planet has indeed risen over the last century with some of the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or so. All of this is indisputable. However, what is argued in this book is that, one, it is impossible to prove that increased CO2 admissions are causing the warming; two, it was warmer, much warmer earlier in the earth's history; and three, it is not clear that this warming is something to be concerned about. The authors argue further that plant life loves having more carbon dioxide. Indeed, this belief is why carbon dioxide levels are not included in the graphs showing pollution levels in the air. The authors have simply decided that CO2 is not a pollutant. Of course this is contrary to common sense and to the long held dictum referred to by contributor Angela Logomasini in her chapter on "Chemical Warfare" that "the dose makes the poison." (p. 159) Plants do indeed like carbon dioxide but researchers have found that at too high a dose, even plants begin to suffer from too much CO2. It may well be that the increase in CO2 levels is not the reason the earth is getting warmer; it may be just a coincidence or a temporary anomaly. However--and this is really the crux of the matter ignored by the authors--what if they are wrong? What if the most likely argument, that increased CO2 levels produced by a growing human population, ARE causing or contributing mightily to global warming? And what if it gets worse? The really scary thing about global warming is that we may pass over the point of no return without knowing it. A full-blown, runaway greenhouse effect would make nuclear winter look like a walk in the park. Look what happened to Venus, where on any spring day (or winter day for that matter) the surface is hot enough to melt lead. Could that happen here? The real and direct answer to that question is: we don't know. Another underlying argument is the idea that human ingenuity is limitless and that whatever problems do develop, our creativity will solve them. This pollyannaish stance, this matter of faith, really, is not compatible with the rigorous scientific discipline to which the authors aspire. The arguments against the hysteria about bioengineering, about how prognosticators were wrong in the past (Paul Ehrlich, etc.), about how wondrous has been our ability to grow food faster than babies, etc. are all well taken. Even the argument that natural resources have become cheaper is true, but that is because a great leap in technological skills coincided with vast areas of the planet being available for exploitation. For our children and grandchildren, who will probably have an even more advanced technology, there will be unfortunately precious few unspoiled lands on which to use that technology. The argument that the past is a guide to the future, held here as an immutable law, is a respectable one, but is not anything near infallible. A contrary argument, that nothing is ever the same, that what applied as truth for hunter and gatherer, and for agrarian societies, may not be true for advanced technological societies, is perhaps a better guide.
Rating:
Summary: Short-sighted
Review: Global warming is the subject in only one of the twelve chapters in this book. Other chapters are on pesticides, water wars, bioengineering, the concept of sustainable (or "sustained") development, crop yields, etc. The spirit of the book can perhaps be taken from Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who wrote the chapter entitled, "Feeding a World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead." The "Miracle Ahead" in Borlaug's title and his enthusiasm for feeding ten billion people are typical of the optimistic tone throughout. I would prefer that we not have ten billion people to feed, but that is another argument based on my belief that we should leave room for substantial agrarian and wild spaces on the planet and that we should keep alive in their natural habitats as many of our fellow creatures as is reasonably possible, and that such resources are of inestimable value. The authors of this book are not much concerned with life other than as it relates to the short-term economic welfare of the human species. This brings us to the question, what are they concerned with? Why are they arguing so vehemently against almost any sort of restraint on economic growth? Why are they not concerned about how many humans may occupy the planet? The answer: they know that poor and disadvantaged humans are needed to work at subsistence wages in order that others (themselves, their friends, and their children) may enjoy a high standard of living. One of the most important environmental trends during the last century NOT noted in this book is the movement of poor people from less developed countries to Europe and the United States. These people gladly leave the lands of their births, many crossing borders illegally, to take on the lowest paying jobs in our economies. Without these eager workers we would all be less well off. Consequently the authors want to continue to be able to exploit not only the environment to the fullest, they want to be able to exploit a ready supply of human labor as well. This is why they do not argue against the dangers of overpopulation and belittle those that do. They want a substantial number of poor people in the world. But philosophic and moral issues aside, is global warming an "eco-myth"? First, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since the levels were first measured, especially during the last century. Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that is, it allows the sun's heat to penetrate to the surface of the planet but prevents heat from escaping. Third, the overall temperature of the planet has indeed risen over the last century with some of the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or so. All of this is indisputable. However, what is argued in this book is that, one, it is impossible to prove that increased CO2 admissions are causing the warming; two, it was warmer, much warmer earlier in the earth's history; and three, it is not clear that this warming is something to be concerned about. The authors argue further that plant life loves having more carbon dioxide. Indeed, this belief is why carbon dioxide levels are not included in the graphs showing pollution levels in the air. The authors have simply decided that CO2 is not a pollutant. Of course this is contrary to common sense and to the long held dictum referred to by contributor Angela Logomasini in her chapter on "Chemical Warfare" that "the dose makes the poison." (p. 159) Plants do indeed like carbon dioxide but researchers have found that at too high a dose, even plants begin to suffer from too much CO2. It may well be that the increase in CO2 levels is not the reason the earth is getting warmer; it may be just a coincidence or a temporary anomaly. However--and this is really the crux of the matter ignored by the authors--what if they are wrong? What if the most likely argument, that increased CO2 levels produced by a growing human population, ARE causing or contributing mightily to global warming? And what if it gets worse? The really scary thing about global warming is that we may pass over the point of no return without knowing it. A full-blown, runaway greenhouse effect would make nuclear winter look like a walk in the park. Look what happened to Venus, where on any spring day (or winter day for that matter) the surface is hot enough to melt lead. Could that happen here? The real and direct answer to that question is: we don't know. Another underlying argument is the idea that human ingenuity is limitless and that whatever problems do develop, our creativity will solve them. This pollyannaish stance, this matter of faith, really, is not compatible with the rigorous scientific discipline to which the authors aspire. The arguments against the hysteria about bioengineering, about how prognosticators were wrong in the past (Paul Ehrlich, etc.), about how wondrous has been our ability to grow food faster than babies, etc. are all well taken. Even the argument that natural resources have become cheaper is true, but that is because a great leap in technological skills coincided with vast areas of the planet being available for exploitation. For our children and grandchildren, who will probably have an even more advanced technology, there will be unfortunately precious few unspoiled lands on which to use that technology. The argument that the past is a guide to the future, held here as an immutable law, is a respectable one, but is not anything near infallible. A contrary argument, that nothing is ever the same, that what applied as truth for hunter and gatherer, and for agrarian societies, may not be true for advanced technological societies, is perhaps a better guide.
Rating:
Summary: Short-sighted
Review: Global warming is the subject in only one of the twelve chapters in this book. Other chapters are on pesticides, water wars, bioengineering, the concept of sustainable (or "sustained") development, crop yields, etc. The spirit of the book can perhaps be taken from Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who wrote the chapter entitled, "Feeding a World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead." The "Miracle Ahead" in Borlaug's title and his enthusiasm for feeding ten billion people are typical of the optimistic tone throughout. I would prefer that we not have ten billion people to feed, but that is another argument based on my belief that we should leave room for substantial agrarian and wild spaces on the planet and that we should keep alive in their natural habitats as many of our fellow creatures as is reasonably possible, and that such resources are of inestimable value. The authors of this book are not much concerned with life other than as it relates to the short-term economic welfare of the human species. This brings us to the question, what are they concerned with? Why are they arguing so vehemently against almost any sort of restraint on economic growth? Why are they not concerned about how many humans may occupy the planet? The answer: they know that poor and disadvantaged humans are needed to work at subsistence wages in order that others (themselves, their friends, and their children) may enjoy a high standard of living. One of the most important environmental trends during the last century NOT noted in this book is the movement of poor people from less developed countries to Europe and the United States. These people gladly leave the lands of their births, many crossing borders illegally, to take on the lowest paying jobs in our economies. Without these eager workers we would all be less well off. Consequently the authors want to continue to be able to exploit not only the environment to the fullest, they want to be able to exploit a ready supply of human labor as well. This is why they do not argue against the dangers of overpopulation and belittle those that do. They want a substantial number of poor people in the world. But philosophic and moral issues aside, is global warming an "eco-myth"? First, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since the levels were first measured, especially during the last century. Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that is, it allows the sun's heat to penetrate to the surface of the planet but prevents heat from escaping. Third, the overall temperature of the planet has indeed risen over the last century with some of the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or so. All of this is indisputable. However, what is argued in this book is that, one, it is impossible to prove that increased CO2 admissions are causing the warming; two, it was warmer, much warmer earlier in the earth's history; and three, it is not clear that this warming is something to be concerned about. The authors argue further that plant life loves having more carbon dioxide. Indeed, this belief is why carbon dioxide levels are not included in the graphs showing pollution levels in the air. The authors have simply decided that CO2 is not a pollutant. Of course this is contrary to common sense and to the long held dictum referred to by contributor Angela Logomasini in her chapter on "Chemical Warfare" that "the dose makes the poison." (p. 159) Plants do indeed like carbon dioxide but researchers have found that at too high a dose, even plants begin to suffer from too much CO2. It may well be that the increase in CO2 levels is not the reason the earth is getting warmer; it may be just a coincidence or a temporary anomaly. However--and this is really the crux of the matter ignored by the authors--what if they are wrong? What if the most likely argument, that increased CO2 levels produced by a growing human population, ARE causing or contributing mightily to global warming? And what if it gets worse? The really scary thing about global warming is that we may pass over the point of no return without knowing it. A full-blown, runaway greenhouse effect would make nuclear winter look like a walk in the park. Look what happened to Venus, where on any spring day (or winter day for that matter) the surface is hot enough to melt lead. Could that happen here? The real and direct answer to that question is: we don't know. Another underlying argument is the idea that human ingenuity is limitless and that whatever problems do develop, our creativity will solve them. This pollyannaish stance, this matter of faith, really, is not compatible with the rigorous scientific discipline to which the authors aspire. The arguments against the hysteria about bioengineering, about how prognosticators were wrong in the past (Paul Ehrlich, etc.), about how wondrous has been our ability to grow food faster than babies, etc. are all well taken. Even the argument that natural resources have become cheaper is true, but that is because a great leap in technological skills coincided with vast areas of the planet being available for exploitation. For our children and grandchildren, who will probably have an even more advanced technology, there will be unfortunately precious few unspoiled lands on which to use that technology. The argument that the past is a guide to the future, held here as an immutable law, is a respectable one, but is not anything near infallible. A contrary argument, that nothing is ever the same, that what applied as truth for hunter and gatherer, and for agrarian societies, may not be true for advanced technological societies, is perhaps a better guide.
| 
