A Book Report Merchants of DOUBT How a Handful of Scientists

							A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




A Selective Reading Focused on Climate Aspects

The book opens with the story of an American scientist – Dr. Benjamin Santer - who chaired the
production of a chapter in the IPCC’s Second Assessment report (issued in 1995). The chapter in
question was Chapter 8, which dealt with “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.”
Having scrupulously adhered to UNFCCC/IPCC procedures and scientific methods, he nonetheless
became the victim of public attack and derision. Matters best handled as scientific debates became
fodder for the popular press.

The authors of this book – both historians - relate in a factual, well-cited manner how several individuals
have clouded the climate issue through the injection of disinformation into the public discourse. That
disinformation has included the denial of scientific facts, the serving up half-truths, the co-opting of
public media outlets, the impugning of reputable experts, and the repetition of these over periods of
years.

The story includes other public issues - health and tobacco, the stratospheric ozone hole, acid rain –
showing how similar tactics were used in these arenas as well – often involving the same individuals.

The principal contrarians: Frederick Seitz and S(iegfried) Fred Singer – scientists; they had been involved
in various important Cold War and more recent programs (e.g., the Strategic Defense Initiative); they
had access to power including the White House. Other contrarians: Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg;
collectively, they used their scientific credentials and connections in legislative and executive branches
to discredit the science they didn’t like, despite their not having credentials in the specialized areas of
climate research (p. 8). Other political/media propagandists: Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Dixy Lee Ray
(p. 251).

To quote the authors:

        “… the idea that free markets produce optimum allocation of resources depends on participants
        having perfect information. But one of several ironies of our story is that our protagonists did
        everything in their power to ensure that the American people did not have good (much less
        perfect) information on crucial issues. Our protagonists, while ostensibly defending free
        markets, distorted the marketplace of ideas in the service of political goals and commercial
        interests. The American belief in fairness and the importance of hearing “both sides” was used
        and abused by people who didn’t want to admit the truth about the impacts of industrial
        capitalism.” (p. 250)




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                    Page 1 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                         2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




The outcome of all this: Years of inaction by the Congress and Chief Executive, extreme complacency
(“confusion” might be a better term) in the much of the populace, and America’s continued lack of a
coherent domestic plan for climate stabilization.

Again quoting the authors:

         “Recently , the distinguished economist Robert Samuelson repeated an argument in the pages
        of the Washington Post – and once again in Newsweek – that Bill Nierenberg made twenty-five
        years ago: Global warming can’t really be solved – so we just have to get used to it. But there
        are solutions. Global warming is a big problem, and to solve it we have to stop listening to
        disinformation. We have to pay attention to our science and harness the power of our
        engineering. Rome may not be burning, but Greenland is melting, and we are still fiddling. We
        all need a better understanding of what science really is, how to recognize real science when we
        see it, and how to separate it from the garbage.” (p. 265)

Following are excerpts, paraphrases, and some condensations. Personal reflections appear at the
bottom [along with some inline notes, found in brackets].



Introduction

Enter Ben Santer (of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s “Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Project”; fingerprinting (detected as tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling) has reinforced the
conception that manmade pollution is causing global warming; this is to be reflected in IPCC’s Second
Assessment Report, Chapter 8, “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes”, of which Dr.
Santer is the lead author.

Following public release of AR2, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) [a publication of News Corporation, whose
chairman and CEO is Rupert Murdoch, one of Jeff Goodell’s “Who’s to Blame” team] repeatedly
published contrarian and offensive articles on global warming, then delayed the printing of rebuttals to
same.

“Why didn’t Santer’s accusers bother to find out the facts? Why did they continue to repeat charges
long after they had been shown to be unfounded? The answer, of course, is that they were not
interested in finding the facts. They were interested in fighting them.” (p 5)

Contrarian perspectives on global warming: claim that it’s part of natural variation; or, if it is happening
and it is our fault, that we’ll successfully adapt; dispute the claim that scientific consensus has been
reached on warming, its cause, and the need to act; …




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                     Page 2 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                          2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Reports to presidents (e.g., the first President Bush) made by or influenced by contrarians first
influenced how the executive branch responded, but then were also picked up and repeated as facts by
popular media, often for years, and being used as justification for inaction. (p. 8)

The substitution of a rhetoric of denial for scientific debate and public insensitivity/indifference to the
difference between the two…

The contrarian objective: Spread confusion, fight facts, merchandize doubt. (p. 9)



Chapter 5: What’s Bad Science? Who Decides? The Fight Over Secondhand Smoke

Bad Science (a handbook for contrarians developed during the tobacco wars) suggested the following
messages to impede public consensus: too often science is manipulated to fulfill a political agenda;
government agencies betray the public trust by violating principles of good science in a desire to achieve
a political goal; no agency is more guilty of adjusting science to support preconceived public policy
prescriptions than the Environmental Protection Agency; public policy decisions that are based on bad
science impose enormous economic costs on all aspects of society; like many before it, EPA’s report
concerning (environmental tobacco smoke) allow political objectives [protect human health?] to guide
scientific research; proposals that seek to improve indoor air quality by singling out tobacco smoke only
enable bad science to become a poor excuse for enacting new laws and jeopardizing individual liberties.
(p. 144)



Chapter 6: The Denial of Global Warming

A partial timeline of conclusions and denial…

Where Americans stand on the question of Global Warming - “there is solid evidence the Earth is
warming” (a Pew Center for the People and the Press poll) - 71% in 2008, 57% in 2009; disinformation
and inaction are eroding public will (p. 170)

1965: Roger Revelle reports to President’s Advisory Committee stating, “By the year 2000 there will be
about 25% more CO2 in our atmosphere than at present and this will modify the heat balance of the
atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate … could occur.” (p. 170)

1977: the “Jasons” – a committee of elite scientists – reviewed CO2 and climate at the request of DOE;
in 1979, they reported that a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level (270 ppm) would result in “an




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                      Page 3 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                           2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




increase of average surface temperature of 2.4°C”, with “polar amplification” – warming greater at the
poles – of 10 to 12°C

1977: Robert White – head of NOAA: “The scientific problems are formidable, the technological
problems, unprecedented, and the potential economic and social impacts, ominous.” (p. 172)

Ocean mixing might delay noticeable impacts for decades, but that could still have serious
consequences: one might not be able to prove warming was under way, while it in fact was, and by the
time one proves it is under way, it would be too late to stop it. (p. 173)

1978: National Climate Act (authorizing assessments of the effect of climate, basic and applied research
to improve the understanding of climate processes, natural and man-induced; methods for improving
climate forecasts; global data collection, and monitoring and analysis activities; systems for the
management and active dissemination of climatological data, information, and assessments; measures
for increasing international cooperation in climate research, monitoring, analysis and data
dissemination; mechanisms for intergovernmental climate-related studies and services; experimental
climate forecast centers; a preliminary 5-year plan, to be submitted to the Congress for review and
comment, detailing the intended actions)

1980: Thomas Schelling (economist), Roger Revelle, Bill Nierenberg, McGeorge Bundy letter report;
conclusions driven by Schelling: “… given the scientific and societal uncertainties, policy makers should
do nothing beyond fund additional research, with as low a public profile as possible”; further, climate
change wouldn’t produce new kinds of climate, it would change the distribution of climatic zones over
the Earth; we could continue to burn fossil fuels without restriction and deal with the consequences
through migration and adaptation. (p. 175)

1980: National Academy of Science committee headed by Bill Nierenberg; committee included natural
scientists and economists; committee was not able to achieve consensus regarding chapters nor on
overall “synthesis” section; the economists’ views permeated the synthesis/summary of the report
(“NAS report”); natural scientists (Revelle, …) warned of sea-level rises of 5 to 6 meters (16 to 19 feet) -
“The oceans would flood all existing port facilities and other low-lying coastal structures, extensive
sections of the heavily farmed and densely populated river deltas of the world, major portions of the
states of Florida and Louisiana, and large areas of many of the world’s major cities;” economist William
Nordhaus: “A very significant reduction in the concentration of CO2 will require very stringent policies,
such as hefty taxes on fossil fuels… The strategies suggested later *in the report+ by Schelling – climate
modification or simply adaptation to a high CO2 and high temperature world – are likely to be more
economical ways of adjusting… Whether the imponderable side effects on society – on coastlines and
agriculture, on life in high latitudes, on human health and simply the unforeseen – will in the end prove
more costly than a stringent abatement of greenhouse gases, we do not now know.” (p. 179)




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                     Page 4 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                          2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Nierenberg’ NAS report was used to dismiss 2 concurrent EPA reports, both of which had concluded that
global warming would be serious and that the nation should take immediate action to reduce coal use;
in the words of White House Science Advisor George Keyworth, “The Science Advisor has discredited the
EPA reports… and cited the NAS report as the best current assessment of the CO2 issue. The press
seems to have discounted the EPA alarmism and has taken the conservative NAS position as the wisest.”
(p. 183)

1988: James Hansen (NASA) announces that anthropogenic global warming had begun (p. 183)

1989: George C. Marshall Institute issues its first report attacking climate science (generated by Jastrow,
Seitz, Neirenberger); their new enemy was “environmental alarmists” (their prior and initial enemy had
been the Soviet Union and their first protégée had been SDI); the approach here was not to dismiss
global warming but to blame it on the sun; the report was presented to high level offices in the
executive branch and had the effect of stopping the positive momentum that had been building in the
(first) Bush’s administration (p. 186); the report had “cherry-picked” data produced by J Hansen (in
1981) to leave the impression that CO2 didn’t have a strong influence on global temperature; Hansen’s
conclusion – the point of all the data he produced in the relevant source study – was that the influences
of CO2, volcanic discharges, and the sun, when combined in a complex climatological model, modeled
observed global temperatures accurately – CO2 was a significant factor in overall climatic behavior

1990: Roger Revelle presents a paper entitled “What Can We Do About Climate Change?”; advocated a
series of near-term actions while research into possible effects continued; the report emphasized
natural gas over coal and oil, conservation, substitution of non-fossil energy sources, carbon
sequestration by stimulating phytoplankton production, increasing atmospheric reflection through
artificial intervention, and expanding forests

Revelle’s position on climate action was clouded by various manipulations (by Fred Singer) and used
against climate-candidate Gore in 1992

1991: Robert Jastrow wrote to the vice president of the American Petroleum Institute: “It is generally
considered in the scientific community that the Marshall report was responsible for the Administration’s
opposition to carbon taxes and restrictions on fossil fuel consumption… (The Marshall Institute) is still
the controlling influence in the White House.” (p. 190)

Fingerprinting: means of assigning cause to global warming; vertical structure of temperature; proposed
and promoted by V. Ramanathan, Klaus Hasselmann, Ben Santer, Lawrence Gates; “fingerprinting”
means identifying attributes of climate that would respond differently to different forcing events: CO2
vs. Sun vs. volcanic emissions




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                    Page 5 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                         2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Another contrarian: Patrick J. Michaels

1995: drafting of Chapter 8 of the Second Assessment; “The balance of evidence suggests there is a
(discernible) human influence on global climate” (p. 205)

Accusations: Santer accused of “secretly altering the IPCC report, suppressing dissent by other scientists,
and eliminating references to scientific uncertainty.” (p. 207)

Denial taken to the pages of the Wall Street Journal; Santer not allowed to freely and promptly rebut
there

“Singer was putting words in other people’s mouth and then using them to discredit them.” (p. 206)

Letter of support of Santer by other scientists: “There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort
by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists
working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are
modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate
through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against
scientific results with which they disagree.” (p. 209-210)

Accusations of secrecy and unaccountability are common in the American conservative rhetoric of
political suppression (p. 211)

“How did such a small group come to have such a powerful voice?” (p. 213)

“… another crucial element to our story (is) how the mass media became complicit, as a wide spectrum
of the media – not just obviously right-wing newspapers like the Washington Times, but mainstream
outlets, too – felt obligated to treat these issues as scientific controversies. Journalists were constantly
pressured to grant the professional deniers equal status – and equal time and newsprint space – and
they did. Eugene Linden, once an environmental reporter for the Time magazine, commented in his
book Winds of Change that “members of the media found themselves hounded by experts who
conflated scientific diffidence with scientific uncertainty, and who wrote outraged letters to the editor
when a report didn’t include their dissent.” Editors evidently succumbed to this pressure, and reporting
on climate in the United States became biased toward the skeptics and deniers because of it.” (p. 214)

“… the ideal of balance leads journalists to give minority views more credence than they deserve.” (p.
215)

June 1997: Byrd-Hagel Senate resolution (97-0) blocking adoption or the Kyoto Protocol; “scientifically,
global warming was an established fact. Politically, global warming was dead.” (p. 215)




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                     Page 6 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                          2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Conclusion: Of Free Speech and Free Markets

“In creating the appearance of science, the merchants of doubt sold a plausible story about scientific
debate. They erected a Potemkin village populated, in only a few cases, with actual scientists. A
remarkable journalist, not to mention an ordinary citizen, could be forgiven for having been fooled by
it.” (p. 245)

“free market political and economic principles” used to rationalize and continue the sale of harmful
products (e.g., tobacco) (p. 247); Ludwig von Mises – a founder of laissez-faire economics; free market
fundamentalism – the belief that free markets are the only way to run an economic system that will not
ultimately destroy our other freedoms; George Soros – “The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds
that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest.” (p. 249); free market
fundamentalism “has not stood the test of experience” (p. 249)

George Will: attacks on environmentalism as a Socialist movement – “green tree with red roots” (p. 252)

Environmentalism attacked by some as an opponent of liberty, freedom, and progress.

Denial has a linkage to fear of global governance, socialism, and the imposition of total compliance on
citizens.

“Acid rain, secondhand smoke, the destruction of stratospheric ozone, and global warming are all real
problems; the real question is how to address them. Denying their truth does not make them go away.
On the contrary, the longer we delay, the worse these problems get, increasing the odds that
governments will have to take the draconian actions that conservatives most fear.” (p. 254)

“The global economy is crashing against the Earth,” (Gus Speth) warns in his recent book, The Bridge at
the Edge of the World. Environmental deterioration is driven by economic activity, so we must consider
if there is a fundamental flaw in our economic system. His conclusion “after much searching and
considerable reluctance, is that most environmental deterioration is a result of systemic failures of the
capitalism that we have today and that long-term solutions must seek transformative changes in the key
features of this contemporary capitalism.” (p. 255)

Another cause of delay: the belief that technology will find satisfactory answers before it is too late (p.
256); this belief is called “Cornucopianism” and has been promoted by economist Julian Simon (note his
1981 book: The Ultimate Resource); here is what Wikipedia says about Cornucopians –

        A cornucopian is a futurist who believes that continued progress and provision of material items
        for mankind can be met by similarly continued advances in technology. Fundamentally they
        believe that there is enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the estimated peak
        population of about 9.22 billion in 2075[1]. However, this would imply there is already enough
        for the current world population, but as starvation and fuel poverty have not yet been




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                    Page 7 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                         2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




        eradicated, the argument therefore is that the problem is not a lack of resources but rather
        inadequate distribution through the current economic and political systems. Looking further
        into the future they posit that the abundance of matter and energy in space would appear to
        give humanity almost unlimited room for growth.

        The term comes from the cornucopia, the "horn of plenty" of Greek mythology, which magically
        supplied its owners with endless food and drink. The cornucopians are sometimes known as
        "Boomsters", and their philosophic opponents—Malthus and his school—are called
        "Doomsters" or "Doomers."

“… Cornucopian philosophy is linked to free market fundamentalism in its conviction that the state
(government) is the problem, not the solution.” (p. 260)

“The first problem is their (the Cornucopians) presumption that these advances will necessarily
continue. If we have indeed reached a tipping point, as many leading scientists fear, then the past may
not be a guide to the future. Past environmental changes were mostly local and reversible. Today,
human activities have a global reach. We are changing our planet in radical ways, and we may not have
the wherewithal to respond to the challenges ahead, at least not without enduring a good deal of
discomfort and dislocation. Moreover, some of these changes – like sea level rise and the melting of
Arctic ice – are almost certainly irreversible.” (p. 260)

“The second problem with Cornucopianism is its assertion that past advances have been the result – and
could only have been the result – of free market systems. This assertion is demonstrably false.” (p. 260)
take as evidence these instances of government-sponsored innovation:

    -   Soviet Union and Sputnik
    -   U.S. Army Ordnance development of machines to make parts for other machines
    -   America’s Silicon Valley
    -   The Internet
    -   Transistors
    -   Rural electrification of the U.S.

Another cause of inaction – prioritized actions on other issues of human concern; e.g., Bjorn Lomborg:
The Skeptical Environmentalist; his argument that other global problems – such as hunger - are more
pressing presents a “false dichotomy” – there is no reason both/all should not be dealt with
simultaneously; the current lack of progress on hunger has not been caused by action on climate;
Lomborg’s analysis focuses wholly on humans, with no consideration of non-human entities nor on the
conditions that our children will inherit; his view also dismisses the conditions of the environment as
they relate to our present happiness and quality of life; Lomborg “makes the philosophical error of
thinking that things that can’t be counted don’t count” (p. 259)




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                 Page 8 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                      2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Why Don’t Scientists Stand Up? “Why didn’t they do more to refute (contrarians)?” (p. 263) scientists
are often reluctant to attract attention to themselves; scientific culture is generally one of collaboration
and peer acceptance; “a scientist who steps out to speak on behalf of his colleagues risks censure, lest
colleagues think he is trying to take all the credit for himself.” (p. 263)

Scientific statements tend to be dry and are often difficult to decipher; “scientists are finely honed
specialists trained to create new knowledge, but they have little training in how to communicate to
broad audiences, even less in how to defend scientific work against determined and well-financed
contrarians… They consider their “real” work to be the production of knowledge, not its dissemination,
and they often view these two activities as mutually exclusive.” (p. 263-264)

“…the demands of objectivity suggest that they should keep aloof from contested issues, but if they
don’t get involved, no one will know what an objective view of the matter looks like.” (p. 264)

“…attacks have had a chilling effect… some scientists have been reluctant to make strong claims about
the scientific evidence, lest contrarians “attack us.”… (others) err on the side of conservatism, … to feel
more “secure.” … Intimidation works.” (p. 265)

“Perhaps the most forgivable reason why scientists have not gotten more involved is because they love
science, and believe that truth wins out in the end. It is their job – their singular job – to figure out what
truth is… (Relating to misinformation on the subject of climate, scientists might ascert,) “We knew it was
garbage, so we just ignored it.” Unfortunately, garbage doesn’t just go away.” (p. 265)



Epilogue: A New View of Science

Decision theory: Understanding Scientific Reasoning by Ronald Giere and others: rational decision
theory analysis; if knowledge is uncertain, then it is generally best to do nothing; considerations – if
costs expended will not certainly be repaid, then best not to act; certain benefits weighed against
uncertain gains; uncertainty favors the status quo; Giere: “Is it any wonder that those who benefit the
most from continuing to do nothing emphasize the controversy among scientists and the need for
continued research?” (p. 267)

“To change the way the problem of global warming looks, Giere and his colleagues conclude, you’d need
“undeniable evidence that doing nothing will lead to warming and that doing something could prevent
it.” But as we have seen, any evidence can be denied by parties sufficiently determined, and you can
never prove anything about the future; you just have to wait and see. So the question becomes, Why do
we expect “undeniable” evidence in the first place?” (p. 267)




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                      Page 9 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                           2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




Modern science is a collective endeavor; scientific institutions have devised means, over the past
centuries, to ensure that only “truth” is enshrined as knowledge; the principle means of control in this
regard is peer review of pending publications

The popular media operates by means which are entirely different and distinct from those of scientific
publication; a single individual can easily inject falsehoods or half-truths into the public’s mind by means
of the popular media

“Many of the claims of our contrarians had already been vetted in the halls of science and failed to pass
the test of peer review. At that point, their claims could not easily be considered scientific, and our
protagonists should have moved on to other things. In a sense they were poor losers. The umpires had
made their call, but our contrarians refused to accept it.” (p. 270)

“… these men (Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg, Jastrow) were never really experts on the diverse isses to which
they turned their attention in their golden years… Journalists were fooled by these men’s stature, and
we are all fooled by the assumption that a smart person is smart about everything…” (p. 270-271)

“The sociologist Michael Smithson has pointed out that all social relations are trust relations.” (p. 272)

“…we need to pay attention to who the experts actually are – by asking questions about their
credentials, their past and current research, the venues in which they are subjecting their claims to
scrutiny, and the sources of financial support they are receiving.” (p. 272)

“If the scientific community has been asked to judge a matter or if they have self-organized to do so,
then it makes sense to take the results of their investigations very seriously. These are the title searches
of modern science and public policy. It does not make sense to dismiss them just because some person,
somewhere, doesn’t agree. And it especially does not make sense to dismiss the consensus of experts if
the dissenter is superannuated, disgruntled, a habitual contrarian, or in the pay of a group with an
obvious ideological agenda or vested political or economic interest. Or in some cases , all of the above.”
(p. 273)

“So we close with the comments of S.J. Green, director of research for British American Tobacco, who
decided, finally, that what his industry had done was wrong, not just morally, but also intellectually: “A
demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of
the guilty. The proper basis for such decisions, is, of course, quite simply that which is reasonable in the
circumstances.” (p.274)



Personal Reflections




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                    Page 10 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                          2/8/2011
A Book Report:
    Merchants of DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
    Smoke to Global Warming (Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway; Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010)




There is a tangible need for the public to – first, value the wellbeing of future generations; and then, to
be able to readily detect and snuff out disinformation before it has a chance to take hold among the
public.

Truth is needed in the public debate and legislative deliberations. Trust is needed between the parties in
order to make use of expert knowledge, analysis, and wisdom in public policy decisions. I have a better
understanding, now, of why “lying” is considered a “sin” – a moral offense: meaningful, mutually
supportive human interrelations are harmed seriously by dishonest communication – in the initial
offense and in all its ripple effects.

Disinformation impedes meaningful progress. It confuses the populace. It can instill a sense of paralyzing
cynicism in the majority. And, in the case of climate action, it can produce delays counted in tens of
years. Contrarianism also risks weakening the experts against whom the denials and disinformation are
directed – the same people that we need, to help us through the transition.

Now I know that not all contrarianism is counterproductive. Sometimes, it offers a fresh view of the
situation, and new and valuable solutions may come to light. The contrarianism we are talking about
here, though, is of a completely different nature.

Is it possible that some of the contrarians described in the book actually believed as truth what they
were saying? How much of what they did was consciously undertaken to undermine the Transition? And
if it was undertaken to deliberately undermine needed progress, what recourse does the civil society
have to stop recurrence?

Collectively, we Americans seem unable to: properly inform ourselves; filter out that “information”
which is untrue; and draw and act on majority positions rationally. We seem disposed to listen to the
contrarians, assess (in agreement with them) that life as we know it now is just fine, and that there is,
therefore, no reason for action; the contrarians’ voice becomes a societal sedative, a societal anesthetic.
Going back to Eric Pooley’s “The Climate War”:
        That America has failed to act is the failure of every American. The responsibility belongs to us
        all.
Will US society be judged guilty of (criminal) insanity by future generations?

I am re-confirmed. What is imperative is a maniacal focus on the need for climate action, a focus which
will neither waiver nor be displaced or diffused.

Lastly, look again at the timeline. Note – nay – lament - the time that has passed… The critical
information and perspective have been available to US society for many, many years…




Merchants of Doubt a01.docx                                                                   Page 11 of 11
JJWagner                                                                                         2/8/2011