In the worst cases, the Ehrlichs imply, phony findings are produced by dishonest researchers seeking fat contracts and consulting fees. More often, however, the brownlash operates by promoting the views of a few legitimate scientists without mentioning that their positions contradict a broad scientific consensus. Contrarian environmental science must be taken seriously, the Ehrlichs argue, but it cannot stand alone as the basis of reasonable environmental policy. The Ehrlichs also maintain that journalists often act, wittingly or not, as accomplices in the brownlash. In story after story, contrarian views are portrayed out of context, with no explanation given of their lack of credibility within the larger scientific community.
Journalists often push anti-environmental positions for their novelty value.
Such a portrayal, however, is based on a highly selective representation of contemporary U.S. environmentalism. There is no discussion, for example, of how pro-environmental journalism itself is often guilty of controversy, exaggeration, and scandal. Even in the present work, which is admirably restrained overall, there are traces of this rhetorical strategy. In devoting most of a detailed appendix to cataloging Easterbrook's errors, the Erlichs simply go overboard. Most of The Betrayal of Science and Reason strikes a deliberately reasonable tone, attempting to make sweeping environmental reforms palatable to a broad spectrum of the electorate.