Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
|
Loading... Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (original 2010; edition 2011)by Naomi Oreskes (Author), Erik M. Conway (Author) breic | Aug 22, 2020 |    ) scottcholstad | Sep 30, 2021 | > German scientists had shown in the 1930s that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, and the Nazi government had run major antismoking campaigns; Adolf Hitler forbade smoking in his presence. However, the German scientific work was tainted by its Nazi associations, and to some extent ignored, if not actually suppressed, after the war > by the early 1960s the industry's own scientists had concluded not only that smoking caused cancer, but also that nicotine was addictive (a conclusion that mainstream scientists came to only in the 1980s, and the industry would continue to deny well into the 1990s). > The Tobacco Industry was found guilty under the RICO statute in part because of what the Hill and Knowlton documents showed: that the tobacco industry knew the dangers of smoking as early as 1953 and conspired to suppress this knowledge. They conspired to fight the facts, and to merchandise doubt. > "Doubt is our product," ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, "since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." > Seitz had found other allies, and by the mid-1980s a new cause: rolling back Communism. He did this by joining forces with several fellow physicists—old cold warriors who shared his unalloyed anti-Communism—to support and defend Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. … As president of the National Academy of Sciences during the 1960s, Seitz had been disgusted by colleagues' antiwar activities, and had opposed the arms control efforts of the Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations as well as Nixon's policy of détente—the U.S.-Soviet effort to move toward more peaceful relations … SDI was instantly controversial, creating a backlash among the very scientists Reagan would need to build it. While most physicists had long been accepting military R & D funds, they reacted differently to SDI, fomenting a coordinated effort to block the program. By May 1986, sixty-five hundred academic scientists had signed a pledge not to solicit or accept funds from the missile defense research program … Why did scientists react so strongly to SDI? One reason was that they had a charismatic spokesman in the person of Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan. > "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions," but it came to be known as TTAPS for the last names of its authors: Richard Turco, O. Brian Toon, Thomas Ackerman, James Pollack, and Carl Sagan. … Their conclusion was qualitatively consistent with TTAPS: "for plausible scenarios, smoke generated by a nuclear war would lead to dramatic reductions in land surface temperature." But quantitatively it was less alarming: the model did not experience the 35°C drop that the TTAPS model had. Instead, it suggested drops of 10°C to 20°C—quite enough to cause crop failure in the growing season, but not really enough to be called "winter." … Sagan's behavior—publishing in Parade and Foreign Affairs before the peer-reviewed TTAPS paper had appeared in Science—was a violation of scientific norms. Moreover, the Parade article presented the TTAPS worst-case scenarios and omitted most of the caveats, so to some scientists it didn't appear as an honest effort in public education. Some saw it as outright propaganda > In his most famous work, Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman argued (as its title suggests) that capitalism and freedom go hand in hand—that there can be no freedom without capitalism and no capitalism without freedom. So defense of one was the defense of the other. (  ) breic | Aug 22, 2020 |  )1  M_Clark | Apr 23, 2020 | As a work of advocacy I think this needed to be either punchier or more detailed. It seems to have fallen into a bit of a no-man's-land; it's not particularly exciting or emotionally stirring, but I don't think it's rigorous enough to change the mind of someone who sees themself as a rational, independent sceptic. Still, the authors did a valuable job in gathering together, and putting into narrative form, information about some of the repeating patterns (and common cast of characters) that show up on the contrarian or 'sceptical' side of various commercially or ideologically threatening scientific questions. ( ) matt_ar | Dec 6, 2019 | Beyond exposing Fred Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, and Fred Singer (and a few others) for the despicable disgraces to the scientific world that they are, Ms. Oreskes and Mr. Conway do an excellent job explaining what true peer review and true science really consist of. From defense of smoking, an indefensible Star Wars program, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoking to denial of climate science, these guys have had devastating effects on US policy. And that was before Fox"News". Now they don't even need to use the pseudo-science bait-and-switch tactics; the right-wing media has devolved to simple gainsaying - and their viewers/listeners don't have a critical thought in their heads to question their confirmation biases. My one complaint about the book is that the authors more than not used the term "skeptics" (they did also use "deniers"). All science is about skepticism, but these disruptors, obfuscators, ... liars ... are not "skeptics". Singer is lower than low, and still at it. I'm disgusted. At the "scientists". ( ) Razinha | May 23, 2017 | I actually think there's very little to say about this book, because its impact is rather obvious. This book was dense. It was also super-important for a large variety of reasons. I knew a ton about peer review and how scientists work going in, and I did NOT know this story. This story is about how a small group of scientists obfuscated the truth about environmental problems ranging from acid rain to global warming, and they did this in a way (through the media and otherwise) that caused the public to doubt the already-proven science. It is incredibly well researched and straightforwardly written, so although it may not be easily digestible, it is eminently readable. Over 40% of the US population still believes global warming is a hoax. I urge you all to read this book so you can know for yourself why that is utterly ridiculous and be able to inform others who may have questions or concerns. ( )1 khage | Feb 17, 2016 |  )1 rivkat | Jan 11, 2014 | This is a powerful book, it details the methods used by a group of scientists, physicists to be exact, manipulated the press, the public, and politicians to fit their agenda. To say they were a group of bitter old men is an oversimplification, but that is the feeling I am left with. These scientists accused others of the very same things they were doing, cherry picking data and results, and molding the research to fit their conclusions. Tobacco, secondhand smoke, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, global warming/climate change and the scientists that researched them were all attacked. They also attacked Rachel Carson and the ban on DDT, claiming millions of African children died of malaria, conveniently leaving out that many may have died because of their work with the tobacco companies convincing people that the connection between smoking and cancer was ‘not proven’. As I said this is a powerful book, well researched, with quotes that actually name a source. Everyone who lives on the planet earth should read it. ( )2 BellaFoxx | Apr 23, 2012 |  This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers. fred_moro | Oct 24, 2011 | ) Devil_llama | Oct 8, 2011 |  ) Narboink | Sep 28, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.I think what struck me most about Merchants of Doubt was how much it was showing the general public and media were being manipulated by a select few people. And how the manipulation was happening – whether it was through the tobacco industry funding scientific studies that would give them evidence they wanted to provide doubt as to whether smoking actually harms a person, or whether it was so-called experts about a topic completely disregarding and disagreeing with scientific fact when speaking with politicians who could further their causes. When there were scientists who tried to educate the masses about the truth on any of the subjects covered in the book (whether smoking kills, SDI, acid rain, the ozone hole, secondhand smoke, global warming and pesticide use), these scientists would be attacked and made to look like they were in the wrong or were trying to stir up a panic. It's just... mind boggling to understand WHY someone would want to hide the truth from the world about serious topics like these ones. What am I taking away from this book? To always look into what the "experts" quoted (or authoring books/articles/studies/etc) are experts of. To look into what their angle may be, how what they are saying really benefits them. To look into what real experts say. To not always just accept what is being said because it is what the mass media tells us is the truth. One of the ideas I struggled with at college was knowing that as a graphic designer, I had to get across the message that my client wanted to portray, even if I didn't agree with this message. We spoke about, in one of my electives, how ethical is it to advertise to children, and in a way this reminds me quite a bit of that – how ethical is it to be promoting the message that there's still debate on these issues when in the scientific community there really wasn't any debate at all. Because that's exactly what these select few people did – promoted the idea that there was a debate about smoking, global warming, acid rain, the ozone hole, etc, when the scientific community accepted the evidence as fact that these issues were real. And those who were saying there was debate weren't even experts in the fields where these issues were researched. It's quite frustrating to read about that and wonder WHY on earth they would do it – and why the media accepted what these "experts" had to say. And it's frustrating to see that it's the same group of people throughout the whole book who would attack other scientists, who would manufacture doubt about serious issues that we're facing. This was a tough read. But it's a good and educational read. Would recommend it to those still wondering about the truth in any of the topics covered in it. Originally posted: http://books.moonsoar.com/archives/2011/09/14/merchants-of-doubt/ ( )1 moonsoar | Sep 14, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.It is a book I have wanted to read and a subject I care deeply about. This book is about greed. At all costs all that matters to corporatists is money in their pockets. I cannot imagine anyone with children wanting to hand down the world they are creating to their future generations. It is disheartening. They have the money and the power and that nowadays that means they have the loudest voice. I am saddened and pessimistic that they can be silenced and reason can prevail. ( ) pwagner2 | Aug 9, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.The book is very clear on the issues and well laid out -- a scientific ignoramus like myself had no difficulty following along -- but was incredibly frustrating to read because I kept expecting a happy ending. There is none. They are going to win. I recieved a free review copy from the publishers before I wrote this review. EdKupfer | Aug 8, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.The book tells a fascinating story of how a few reputed scientists – for whatever personal reasons, which were not fully explored - willingly help the big corporations to wage the war against the people who raise the flag, despite overwhelming evidence of harmful consequences to the environment and humankind. From the tobacco link to cancer in the fifties to the harmful effects of DDT, acid rain, ozone hole, second-hand smoke, and global warming in subsequent decades, the culprit industries have been successful in delaying regulations by selling doubt about these scientific studies. It is a sad story because the “business” side, in the name of free market, seems to maintain the upper hand with the political backing of the conservative right (see the GOP effort to defund EPA). The authors seem to think that by exposing those few scientists the public will hear a more objective voice from others. Sadly, there will be no shortage of other “merchants of doubt” to challenge whatever new environmental problems warned by the scientific community. ( ) qforce | Aug 4, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers. JeanneKirkby | Jul 30, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers. ) Wings3496 | Jul 13, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Merchants of Doubt lays out this argument in exacting detail, going through each of these scientific issues, providing the support for why science (and 90+% of scientists) provide the support that it is true, and laying out the case that there is a dedicated group of people – a group of people that seem to show up in every one of these arguments – that confuse the issues rather than enlighten them. There is no doubt this book has an agenda. (It is up to the reader to determine if that agenda has merit.) And the last couple of chapters suffer because of this agenda, hashing over much of the same territory as the previous chapters. But read around that agenda and you will find a greatly enlightening examination of how environmental science continues to tell a bleak story, and how the spin doctors make the world believe things will only get better. No matter which side of these “debates” you are on, you should read this book to gain an understanding of the battle that is occurring. ( )1 figre | Jul 10, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.Industrial and business interests have great lobbying power in the halls of government and, for the last few decades, have brought this to bear in Washington. The result is that environmental progress is lurching forward at a snail's pace. It is interesting that the scientists whom the government has consulted over the years, and who justify delaying and "more study," consist of the same cast of characters: S. Fred Singer, Frederick Steitz, William Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow. Their expertise, which is notable, lies in physics and weaponry; none are biologists, geologists, chemists, or oceanographers - fields that might be more appropriate for debating environmental concerns. There appears to be a disconnect between what is good for people and what is good for corporate pocketbooks. Definitely read this book and pass it on! ( )3 Nulla | Jul 7, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers. )1 thosgpetri | Jul 4, 2011 | This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers.This is an important book to be read by those who seek to be informed citizens. The authors reveal in detail the strategies used by those who would confuse the public discourse about critical issues confronting society. The authors make it clear that we all need to be discriminating readers of media reports. What is missing are explicit instructions about how the ordinary citizen may discern the reliability of what is reported in the media. The authors spent five years meticulously conducting research for their book. How are the rest of us, with limited time and expertise, to identify what is valid scientific evidence and what is deliberate misinformation? Nonetheless, simply reading this book will raise the reader’s awareness about how some in our society are selling us a bill of goods. ( )1 mitchellray | Jun 28, 2011 | It is truly disturbing that throughout the second half of the 20th Century, the same people kept turning up using the same tactics to discredit the "Inconvenient Truths" of scientific discovery. From the link of smoking to cancer, to second hand smoke, to the agricultural overuse of pesticides, to nuclear winter, to climate change, to ozone depletion, to the fantasy of SDI, the same, small group of pro-industry science advisers have cropped up again and again to push a political (and business) agenda in defiance of overwhelming evidence. It's not just a laundry list of fallacious arguments, either. Each of the historical cases is given in context, and the counters to the "Merchants" are explained. I'm not sure how well this book will do in convincing people one way or another, I suspect that most people reading it will already have made up their minds. ( ) Anome | Jan 10, 2011 | I believe this is a book that many people should read, and by keeping it in my library (collecting dust) doesn't help. I have passed the book on to a friend, who will continue to pass it on after he has read it. ( )1 nzwaneveld | Dec 23, 2010 | I was amazed at how the "controversies" over tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change have been orchestrated by the same group of charlatans. This group includes, among others, William Nierenberg, director of Scripps while I was there as a grad student. One thing the book does not mention is that similar controversies have been ginned up over other issues, like cell phone radiation, power lines, and vaccines. ( ) FredB | Aug 9, 2010 |  MarkBeronte | Mar 4, 2014 | |
LibraryThing Early Reviewers AlumNaomi Oreskes's book Merchants of Doubt was available from LibraryThing Early Reviewers.  Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
 Google Books — Loading...GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)174.95Philosophy and Psychology Ethics Professional and Business Ethics Other professional ethical issues Scientific ResearchLC ClassificationRatingAverage: (4.2)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
)
1
> German scientists had shown in the 1930s that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, and the Nazi government had run major antismoking campaigns; Adolf Hitler forbade smoking in his presence. However, the German scientific work was tainted by its Nazi associations, and to some extent ignored, if not actually suppressed, after the war
> by the early 1960s the industry's own scientists had concluded not only that smoking caused cancer, but also that nicotine was addictive (a conclusion that mainstream scientists came to only in the 1980s, and the industry would continue to deny well into the 1990s).
> The Tobacco Industry was found guilty under the RICO statute in part because of what the Hill and Knowlton documents showed: that the tobacco industry knew the dangers of smoking as early as 1953 and conspired to suppress this knowledge. They conspired to fight the facts, and to merchandise doubt.
> "Doubt is our product," ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, "since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public."
> Seitz had found other allies, and by the mid-1980s a new cause: rolling back Communism. He did this by joining forces with several fellow physicists—old cold warriors who shared his unalloyed anti-Communism—to support and defend Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. … As president of the National Academy of Sciences during the 1960s, Seitz had been disgusted by colleagues' antiwar activities, and had opposed the arms control efforts of the Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations as well as Nixon's policy of détente—the U.S.-Soviet effort to move toward more peaceful relations … SDI was instantly controversial, creating a backlash among the very scientists Reagan would need to build it. While most physicists had long been accepting military R & D funds, they reacted differently to SDI, fomenting a coordinated effort to block the program. By May 1986, sixty-five hundred academic scientists had signed a pledge not to solicit or accept funds from the missile defense research program … Why did scientists react so strongly to SDI? One reason was that they had a charismatic spokesman in the person of Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan.
> "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions," but it came to be known as TTAPS for the last names of its authors: Richard Turco, O. Brian Toon, Thomas Ackerman, James Pollack, and Carl Sagan. … Their conclusion was qualitatively consistent with TTAPS: "for plausible scenarios, smoke generated by a nuclear war would lead to dramatic reductions in land surface temperature." But quantitatively it was less alarming: the model did not experience the 35°C drop that the TTAPS model had. Instead, it suggested drops of 10°C to 20°C—quite enough to cause crop failure in the growing season, but not really enough to be called "winter." … Sagan's behavior—publishing in Parade and Foreign Affairs before the peer-reviewed TTAPS paper had appeared in Science—was a violation of scientific norms. Moreover, the Parade article presented the TTAPS worst-case scenarios and omitted most of the caveats, so to some scientists it didn't appear as an honest effort in public education. Some saw it as outright propaganda
> In his most famous work, Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman argued (as its title suggests) that capitalism and freedom go hand in hand—that there can be no freedom without capitalism and no capitalism without freedom. So defense of one was the defense of the other. (