What do you think?
Rate this book
Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse
"Bailey explodes shibboleths of the environmental movement in an unsettling, thought-provoking polemic certain to stir controversy."--Publishers Weekly. Bailey has covered science as a writer for Forbes and as a producer for PBS.
- GenresEnvironmentScience
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 11, 2014
This book is one of those rare books about a subject where a fair and balanced logical and rational discussion about such a highly polarized subject is done. I highly recommend it.
July 12, 2024
AN EARLY CRITIQUE OF "ALARMIST" ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTIONS
Ronald Bailey (born 1953) is the science editor for Reason magazine.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1993 book, "In this book I hold those environmental alarmists (e.g., Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, Limits to Growth) strictly accountable for their faulty analyses, their wildly inaccurate predictions, and their heedless politicization of science, in the hope that the next generation will not grow up feeling that their future is dismal and blighted. This book demonstrates the reality of human progress..."
He notes that in the original 1968 edition of Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb (A Sierra Club-Ballantine Book), Ehrlich predicted that India would not achieve self-sufficiency in food production; but in the revised 1971 edition, this prediction was discreetly removed, and Bailey notes, "In fact, India became more than self-sufficient, exporting surplus grain in the early 1980s to the Soviet Union." (Pg. 43) (They remain self-sufficient to this day, by the way.)
He also notes that the members of the Club of Rome (which produced the "Limits to Growth" book), in the twenty years since their book was published, "have learned a bit from mainstream economics," and no longer accept their original projections of resource depletion; "cautiously" favor nuclear power, and recognize that economic growth lowers fertility rates. (Pg. 76)
Concerning ozone deletion, he argues that "the decline had very strong regional components and over the years these figures have shifted constantly---first up, then down... even if CFCs had not been banned, the tropics would have seen no significant decline in ozone at all." (Pg. 127) He cites a botany professor, and concludes that a small decline in the ozone layer poses "no terrific problems for the world's ecosystems." (Pg. 129) He concedes, however, that "it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion," and concludes, "it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs." (Pg. 139)
He asserts that according to "climate alarmists," warming should occur "in step with increases in greenhouse gases," yet he points out that in the years 1890-1940, when greenhouse gases were at lower levels, "most of the warming occurred then." (Pg. 148) Nevertheless, he admits that "Many climatologists believe that there may eventually be some warming associated with increased atmospheric CO2, but nothing like the climate disaster predicted by the apocalyptics." (Pg. 152-153)
Interested persons would want to consult Bailey's more recent books, of course, but his first book is still a useful "corrective" to some early, too-broad projections.
Ronald Bailey (born 1953) is the science editor for Reason magazine.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1993 book, "In this book I hold those environmental alarmists (e.g., Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, Limits to Growth) strictly accountable for their faulty analyses, their wildly inaccurate predictions, and their heedless politicization of science, in the hope that the next generation will not grow up feeling that their future is dismal and blighted. This book demonstrates the reality of human progress..."
He notes that in the original 1968 edition of Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb (A Sierra Club-Ballantine Book), Ehrlich predicted that India would not achieve self-sufficiency in food production; but in the revised 1971 edition, this prediction was discreetly removed, and Bailey notes, "In fact, India became more than self-sufficient, exporting surplus grain in the early 1980s to the Soviet Union." (Pg. 43) (They remain self-sufficient to this day, by the way.)
He also notes that the members of the Club of Rome (which produced the "Limits to Growth" book), in the twenty years since their book was published, "have learned a bit from mainstream economics," and no longer accept their original projections of resource depletion; "cautiously" favor nuclear power, and recognize that economic growth lowers fertility rates. (Pg. 76)
Concerning ozone deletion, he argues that "the decline had very strong regional components and over the years these figures have shifted constantly---first up, then down... even if CFCs had not been banned, the tropics would have seen no significant decline in ozone at all." (Pg. 127) He cites a botany professor, and concludes that a small decline in the ozone layer poses "no terrific problems for the world's ecosystems." (Pg. 129) He concedes, however, that "it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion," and concludes, "it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs." (Pg. 139)
He asserts that according to "climate alarmists," warming should occur "in step with increases in greenhouse gases," yet he points out that in the years 1890-1940, when greenhouse gases were at lower levels, "most of the warming occurred then." (Pg. 148) Nevertheless, he admits that "Many climatologists believe that there may eventually be some warming associated with increased atmospheric CO2, but nothing like the climate disaster predicted by the apocalyptics." (Pg. 152-153)
Interested persons would want to consult Bailey's more recent books, of course, but his first book is still a useful "corrective" to some early, too-broad projections.
September 15, 2013
I do not have enough time to read this, since I am not interested in it anyway. I am concerned about the lack of scientific knowledge politicians have whom then make extremely important decisions that negatively impact humanity, but this book is too hard to read in my down time and I do not own it, so I am not going to read it...
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews