Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
Bloomsbury Press (2010), Edition: 1, Hardcover, 368 pages
Description
"Merchants of Doubt " tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades that link smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Nulla
If you've ever wondered why it seems so difficult for the United States to implement environmental protections to deal with issues such as acid rain, ozone depletion, or global warming, to name a few, then definitely read Merchants of Doubt. In painstaking detail, the authors, Naomi Oreskes and
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!
Show More
Erik M. Conway, document the dance performed by scientists and politicians in the federal administration when environment meets the free market. Science states the facts and offers hypotheses, the free market responds with delaying tactics for "doing the the right thing" because it is costly. The free market then appeals to the administration and it, in turn, attempts to ameliorate the impact of scientific reports by soliciting countering opinion from other scientists.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!
Show Less
LibraryThing member BellaFoxx
I work for an environmental agency, during a conference on Climate Change, the speaker recommended this book. I immediately downloaded it. It took me a while to get to it and a while to finish reading it.
This is a powerful book, it details the methods used by a group of scientists, physicists to be
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.
This is a powerful book, it details the methods used by a group of scientists, physicists to be
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mitchellray
The authors, both historians of science, carefully document the intentional disinformation campaigns waged by free market fundamentalists to discredit the scientific findings identifying the harmful affects of smoking, ozone depletion, acid rain, the Star Wars weapons system, DDT, and global
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.
Show More
warming. A handful of scientists have collaborated with business executives and government insiders over the past fifty years to manufacture doubt in the public mind about established scientific evidence. The reason, argue the authors, is to thwart government regulation. The strategy employed by these merchants of doubt is to spread disinformation through media outlets so as to mislead the public and government policy makers into denying established scientific knowledge.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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thosgpetri
This is the most interesting book I have read in along time. It is well written and well documented. The story is pimarily about 4 men-Frederick Seitz, S Fred Singer, Wm. Nierenberg, and Robt. Jastrow- turned their backs on accepted science in a misguided effert to fight Communism. To them the idea
Show More
of regulating tabacco and other products was antithical to the ideals of free enterprise. While they did not ackowledge the problems in question or belittled their effect, they also stated that the free market would always rectify problems in due course if they occurred. In this they were aided, financialy and with other resources, by companies with vested interest in the outcome and by various political entities representing "free enterprise." By reliying on pubplic misperception of scientific methods, they were able to manipulate facts, or if needed create their own, to confuse the issues and create a public awareness of their view of the facts as true facts. Show Less
LibraryThing member figre
Contrary to all appearances, there is not a scientific debate going on about global warning. There was no scientific debate about smoking, there was no scientific debate about second-hand smoke, there was no scientific debate about acid rain, there was no scientific debate about the ozone hole, and
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.
Show More
there is no scientific debate about global warning. What there is, in each of these cases, is a huge body of scientific fact that is being fought with obfuscation and misdirection.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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nzwaneveld
Interesting book. Read it with interest. Well written. Along the way I wondered how this knowledge could help me in business... not in an attempt to repeat it, but to be able to better recognize attempts by others to delay certain developments. It does make me curious about what other topics (such
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.
Show More
as Electro smog) are still under a shadow of doubt. What really hit me is that what matters in science is not what matters in politics. Scientists have been afraid to get involved because they have seen what happens when they do.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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rivkat
You knew that there was a concerted, well-funded campaign to convince people that “99 scientists agree, 1 doesn’t” justified reporting issues as controversial, right? This is a book-length exegesis of the past sixty years of such campaigns. The thing that I didn’t know—a lot of the time
Show More
it was the same guys behind the media blitz defending cigarettes, SDI (Star Wars), acid rain, carbon emissions. The exact same men, with the exact same expertise (a lot of physicists, very little actual field knowledge). It wasn’t just that they developed and perfected the techniques, enough so that our kids are going to suffer for their sins—they themselves just transferred the techniques to new fields when the initial ones were decisively lost (cigarettes) or rendered irrelevant (Star Wars). If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention—but then journalists weren’t. It's useful information, but the repetition eventually just gets really depressing: the techniques that worked on cigarettes continue to work, as Rome burns. Show Less
LibraryThing member Narboink
Here is a great book about the origins and ongoing impetus of what is commonly referred to as the "anti-science" wing of the conservative political class. Oreskes and Conway have done a great deal of research on the subject, some of which is a bit tiresome (especially the back-and-forth academic
Show More
wrangling over scientific papers) but all of which is relevant and enlightening. This is fundamentally the story of a tactic - the tactic of capitalizing on scientific doubt. It is the story of how specific members of the scientific community galvanized opposition to the dangers of smoking, second-hand smoke, SDI, acid rain, DDT and global warming. It is well written and ruthless. Show Less
LibraryThing member Anome
My one problem with this book is that it is all to repetitive. This is not a fault on the part of the authors, but rather on the part of their subject matter.
It is truly disturbing that throughout the second half of the 20th Century, the same people kept turning up using the same tactics to
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.
It is truly disturbing that throughout the second half of the 20th Century, the same people kept turning up using the same tactics to
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Wings3496
Oreskes' and Conway's "Merchants of Doubt" is an excellent look into a world were science has less to do with data, and much more to do with business and politics. The book outlines the progression of professional scientific denialism from the initial tobacco industry backlash of the seventies to
Show More
S.D.I., acid rain, the ozone, secondhand smoke, and global warming. Well researched and thoroughly cited, the book demonstrates that the small related cadre of individuals and organizations responsible for originally denying tobaccos deadly side effects are the same groups casting doubt on current science (such as on climate change). The book avoids any preaching, relying instead on strong research and facts to demonstrate clear links and allowing the reader to make the connections themselves. A highly recommended book for anyone interested in science, politics, or both. Show Less
LibraryThing member EdKupfer
"How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" is the sub title, and pretty much nails the thrust of the book is Fred Seitz and Fred Singer, two aging scientists who traded their credentials and reputations to work for industry on misleading
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.
Show More
politicians and the general public on the dangers threatened by tobacco, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, DDT, climate change, and any number of other topics that weren't their areas of scientific expertise.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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Razinha
My confirmation bias predicted I would like this book, as I am familiar with many of the names and their histories. My bias was correct, but I still needed to check what the authors were presenting, because I like to think I think. Well sourced, and well written, this is another book that needs to
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".
Show More
be read by everyone...but won't be.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".
Show Less
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
The authors cover the history of misinformation and spin in the service of the anti-regulatory movement. Starting with the creation of the many think tanks spawned by the tobacco industry in the wake of the discovery of the risks of smoking, they trace the key players as they move from defending
Show More
tobacco to denying environmental problems such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming, ending up with the recent attack on Rachel Carson in an attempt to discredit science in general so that the public would come to distrust and despise regulations. The authors compiled an impressive amount of research, and the writing sytle is lucid and readable. A must read for anyone wanting to understand why anyone could think that there are two equal sides to every single story, and that every scientific finding is a controversy. Show Less
LibraryThing member pwagner2
I was thrilled when I was picked to receive this book thru 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
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.
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
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MarkBeronte
Merchants of Doubt was one of the most talked-about climate change books of recent years, for reasons easy to understand: It tells the controversialstory of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective
Show More
campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. The same individuals who claim the scienceof global warming is "not settled" have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it. Show Less
LibraryThing member breic
Depressing and, unfortunately, not especially surprising. Sad that these anti-scientists now dominate the government.
> 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
> 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.
> 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
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member FredB
Subtitle: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming
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,
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.
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,
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member scottcholstad
God knows I’ve written a few crass or aggressive reviews before but I’m not even going to review this one — I don’t know if I could stop myself from offending everyone, even those in agreement. The problem is not the book — it’s well done and probably every American should read it.
Show More
It’s just that I spent 20 years of my life as a 3-pack per day smoker — of Camel unfiltered no less. I quit cold turkey in August 2006, but I’ve had a number of relatives die from the cancers they got from lifetimes of smoking and even though I was cognizant of a number of things in the book, reading this info, this tale laid out so well by the author comes close to sending me over the edge. I’m not going to say anymore except that I do recommend this book. Show Less
Awards
LA Times Book Prize (Finalist — Science & Technology — 2010)
Language
Original publication date
2010
Physical description
368 p.; 9.29 inches
ISBN
1596916109 / 9781596916104