This book made me angry.  And it should make you angry as well.  The  title "Merchants of Doubt" comes from the famous line of a tobacco  company executive many years ago, that their goal was to "manufacture doubt" in the minds of the public and  policy-makers so that no policy-making action would occur, or at least  so that it should be delayed as long as possible.  And the tobacco  industry succeeded for decades after they themselves knew that  tobacco/nicotine was addictive, and caused cancer 
Naomi  Oreskes and Erik Conway are science historians.  What they have  uncovered with this book is how just a handful of scientists and their  collaborators have had a hand in nearly every major science denial  episode for the last 40 years.  And in the center of it all is the  George C. Marshall Institute, Fred Seitz, S. Fred Singer, William Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow.
After  the tactics were perfected in the fight to deny that smoking causes  cancer, these handful of men with close ties to the Reagan and  conservative ideologies employed them over and over again to deny  that smokestack emissions causes acid rain, CFCs causes ozone depletion, second  hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers, and greenhouse gas emissions  cause global warming.  In all cases the science has been right, and this  group of men helped delay action for many years until even their deceit  couldn't hide the truth.
And those tactics, repeated to deny the  science in each of these issues, were all the same: employ a few  scientists willing to shill for the industry or who are "skeptical" (to  create the illusion of credibility), focus the efforts through  well-funded right wing think tanks (to create the illusion of  independence), create "new" science specifically designed to create  uncertainty (i.e., not to answer questions, but to create contrasting  data they can misrepresent), hyperventilate about how "the science is  not settled" (knowing that science is never settled, as there is always more research that can be done), and of course, using their PR skills, Frank Luntz  wordsmithing, and punchy catchphrases like "sound  science" to make it sound like they are saying something when they are  not saying anything.
What I found amazing was how the origins of  the George C. Marshall Institute and all of its subsequent science  denialism came out of the cold war fight against communism.  These  handful of scientists were atomic bomb builders and astrophysicists who  had no expertise in any of the science they were denying.  But they had  connections, most notably with the Reagan administration and the  Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) for which the George C.  Marshall Institute was started to sell to the public, the military, and conservative legislators.  Yet despite  this lack of any expertise they continued to insert themselves into the  acid rain debate, the CFC debate, the second hand smoke debate, and the  climate change debate.  And each and every time their goal was to push  the denial of the science.  They equated environmentalism with communism  ("green on the outside, red on the inside").  And using their lobbying  skills and influence they were able to create the impression that there  was still a raging debate in the science, even though in all cases the  science was overwhelming and they represented a very minority opinion (and an opinion not backed by any science).   Actually, in all cases they were not being scientists at all, but rather  advocates for non-action (all of these men had long-since stopped doing  actual research, and none of them had ever done research in the areas  of science they were denying).
What is most disturbing is that  they routinely employed unscientific methods and deceit to wage personal attacks on scientists, including taking advantage of Roger Revelle on his death bed, then going after his student Justin Lancaster, then Ben Santer and now climate scientists like  Michael Mann and Phil Jones have become the victims of the latest iterations of harassment in the denialist  industry's tactics.
Oreskes and Conway  end their book with "A New View of Science," which I'll let people read  for themselves.  And they should.  In fact, they must.  This book must  be on the reading list of anyone and everyone interested in science, so  they can read for themselves how just a handful of unscrupulous  scientists with deep political connections and a near religious  anti-communism fervor have been at the heart of every denial of science  in the last several decades.  
Other science book reviews

No comments:
Post a Comment