Periodically I post reviews of relevant science communication books. The following is a reposted review of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.
This book will make you angry. 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.
Postscript: You'll notice that many of the "go-to" people that climate change deniers like are associated with the George C. Marshall Institute and other denial lobbyist groups like the Heartland Institute. Roy Spencer, for example, is on the George C. Marshall Board, and William Happer is its Chair. It's not surprising that every one of the tiny percentage of scientists who deny man-made climate change is associated with denial lobbyist organizations.
Other related book reviews (click and scroll)