Book Review: Merchants of Doubt

By Tiffany

Where do climate denialists get their information?

How is it that the belief in climate change has plummeted, when the scientific and factual evidence is skyrocketing?

How will we, as a global society, ever expect to address one of the greatest issues of out time if we refuse to recognize it?

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set out to find the answer to the first two questions quite some time ago. In their recent publication Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming they review from a science historian’s perspective, just what has happened. Oreskes is currently on a book tour answering and explaining just how the presence of doubt, not fact, has been enough to derail the most conclusive scientific evidence. The tactic? It’s most often referred to as the Tobacco Scheme since most publicly used by tobacco companies to fight regulation and maintain their market share.

How do these schemes work?

Essentially by taking well known scientists, having them publicly state their doubts on the scientific research (while being funded by think tanks) and then leverage those scientists profiles for lobbying and marketing campaigns. This of course is a rather crude rendition of the careful planning that takes place, but I recommend hearing Oreskes speak to understand just how effective this process has been for so many years.

The catch?

First, these scientists are commenting on research done outside of their field.Imagine taking advice from an Opthamologist (eye doctor) on how to address your stomach aches. What? They are both doctors, right? Just like scientists are all…scientists. So check your sources.

Second, they are taking advantage of the fact that the general population isn’t familiar with the scientific process for research. Scientific research is different from a Think Tank’s research or a non-profit or a company’s R & D department. Why? Because it must be peer reviewed, and all of the comments and critiques must be addressed. It takes a great deal of time to build the scientific body of knowledge on a subject due to this thorough and necessary process. How long have we known about climate change? Apparently Linden Johnson knew in 1965 it would be an issue, and in the early 1990s it was accepted that anthropogenic sources were the cause in the scientific community based on a great deal of research. To be clear, there is no scientific debate on climate change. Personal, political, corporate, religious, and all other types of beliefs or agendas, not scientific, debates remain.

Third, the public status of the ‘Scientists’ that are casting doubts have given them access to media, lobbyists, politicians, businesses, and other interested parties. But more importantly, their status as a ‘Scientist’ not necessarily a Climatologists, Glaciologists, or other climate change specific study has given them credibility in the eyes of the public. Remember, many people are ‘Doctors’, but you wouldn’t trust any type of doctor with your specific medical condition.

Fourth, the media’s lack of understanding of scientific inquiry, reporting, and the process along with their keen nose for drama (present or imagined) has been its own self-propelling train of misinformation. To be clear, there is no scientific debate regarding whether humans are the source of this increased time in warming. Radiation from the sun has not changed (they know because they measure it), but emissions have, and since we are on glacial and interglacial cycles (meaning we go from ice age to a ‘hot’ age) we know that this rate of warming is unaccounted for (not to mention that we are currently in a ‘cooling’ phase of the cycle…meaning it should be getting colder, not hotter out).

So how did we all get so confused?

Well a concerted effort for casting a doubt, not necessarily a credible doubt, but doubt. If you are in a room of 100 people and you take a vote, and all but one person votes YES, then would you say there was a controversy? Would you give equal media attention to the Yes and No sides of the argument? No. You can report it, but if the vast majority has said ‘yes’, then there isn’t much controversy to report. Unfortunately, in the realm of climate change reporting or mis-reporting, both sides have been given equal press time.

Again, there is no scientific debate about climate change. But ‘Merchants of Doubt’ as Oreskes and Conway title them in their book, are able to override this by casting doubt. And when there wasn’t anymore evidence to try to shred, they attacked the content of character of the scientists themselves, not their work. A great example is ClimateGate. An overblown and somewhat pathetic attempt (if you are reading the science, not the opinion column) to dissuade populations of climate change and give industries more reason to fight regulation.

I highly recommend this book, hearing Oreskes speak, or to watch the video below to help clear the air, persay, about what has happened. The same technique was used to fight the regulation and common belief of negative ties to tobacco, DDT, acid rain, and the ozone hole. It is not new, but it has been effective, to all of our great misfortune.

D-o-u-b-t. It has been their most powerful tool. But Education an be ours.