422 of 471 people found the following review helpful
If you are a candidate for a stroke or heart attack --- or just have fond hopes that your child or grandchild will grow up in a world without a sell-by date --- you really should step back from this screen.
I have read many books that infuriated me, and I was glad for the experience. It's good to get pissed off at injustice, fictional or real, and come away energized, eager to do your small part in correcting whatever wrong the book exposed. But although "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" is brilliantly reported and written with brutal clarity, it has left me with a different reaction --- frustration that lobbyists and "experts" have blocked all meaningful steps to avert environment disaster. And will continue to do so, not just until millions are afflicted with skin cancer and the wheat fields are bone dry and the poor are fighting in the streets for water. No. In the very last minute of the very last hour of humanity's very last day on earth, a scientist on the payroll of an oil or coal company --- most likely a scientist who has no expertise in environmental matters and whose scientific contributions ended decades ago --- will be saying there's "still doubt" about global warming.
Naomi Oreskes is a real scientist and historian. She's Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; her books include "Plate Tectonics: An Insider's History of the Modern Theory of the Earth," cited by Library Journal as one of the best science and technology books of 2002. A few years ago, she tired of the Bush administration's insistence that "most" scientists disagree with the notion of global warming, so she did what a real scientist does --- she read every single piece of science written on the subject to see what "most" scientists said about it.
Not one of them called it a "theory." Her conclusion:
"No scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a 'belief' to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action."
Her new book, written with science journalist Erik Conway, is about the absence of reasoned action --- and not just when the issue is global warming. The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn't get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists. Suddenly the issue had two sides. Better not to do anything until we know more.
Truth in science is a process: research, followed by scientific writing, followed by peer review. In this way, mistakes are corrected, findings refined, validity confirmed. But the interests of scientists on the payroll of, say, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco wasn't truth. "They were not interested in finding facts," Oreskes and Conway write. "They were interested in fighting them."
Here's the absolute stunner --- some of the scientists who were on the payroll of tobacco companies turn out to be the very same scientists now working for oil and coal companies to create confusion about global warming.
Why you may ask, would scientists who once had impressive reputations pose as "experts" on topics which they have no history of expertise?
Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer --- the most visible of the tobacco-causes-cancer and man-causes-global-warming deniers --- were both physicists. Long ago, Seitz helped built the atomic bomb; long ago, Singer developed satellites. Both were politically conservative. Both supported the War in Vietnam and politicians who were obsessed with the Soviet threat. Both were patriots who believed that defending business had something to do with defending freedom. And both were beneficiaries of the strategy that John Hill, Chairman and CEO of the Hill & Knowlton public relations firm, laid out for tobacco executives in 1953: "Scientific doubts should remain." The way to encourage doubt? Call for "more research" --- and fund it.
You can imagine what this did to media coverage in our country. As early as the 1930s, German scientists had shown that cigarettes caused lung cancer. (No one smoked around Hitler.) By the early 1960s, scientists working for American tobacco companies agreed --- nicotine was "addictive" and its smoke was "carcinogenic." But the incessant call for more research and "balanced" journalism kept the smoking controversy alive until 2006, when a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty under the RICO statute (that is, guilty of a criminal pattern of fraud.) Fifty years of doubt! Impressive.
"The tobacco road would lead through Star Wars, nuclear winter, acid rain and the ozone hole, all the way to global warming," Oreskes and Conway write. The lay reader may want to read the tobacco stories, skim the middle chapters, and then re-focus on global warming, the subject of the book's second half. There you can thrill to the argument that the sun is to blame. Revel in the attacks on environmental scientists (they're all Luddites, and some are probably pinkos). See politics trump science. (The attack on Rachel Carson, who first alerted us to the dangers of DDT, is especially potent. In a novel, Michael Crichton had a character say, "Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler....It was so safe you could eat it.")
Fifty-six "environmentally skeptical" books were published in the 1990s --- and 92% of them were linked to a network of right-wing foundations. As late as 2007, 40% of the American public believed global warming was still a matter of scientific debate. (It's not just Americans who are now addled. Just today, in the New York Times, I read that "only 26 percent of Britons believe that `climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,' down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.")
I'm just dancing on the surface of this book's revelations. There's so much more, and it's all of a piece --- as the director of British American Tobacco finally admitted, "A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of the guilty."
Well said, as far as it goes. When I finished "Merchants of Doubt," I felt a little more strongly about that guilt. I try to have compassion for the failings of others, hoping that they might have compassion for my failings, but I have trouble thinking that these scientists and the CEOs who hired them were misguided or confused or even blinded by the incessant need for profit. I now think there really is such a thing as Evil. In their book, Oreskes and Conway do a great public service --- they give us their names of the villains and tell us their stories.
132 of 153 people found the following review helpful
This book is a model of engaged historical scholarship. It is thorough and documented well, written clearly, and addresses an issue of great contemporary importance. Oreskes and Conway document a series of attempts to dispute important scientific findings related to a series of public health and environmental hazards. From the hazards of tobacco to global warming, the pattern is the same. Supported by generous funding from industries with much to lose from increased regulation, a small group of dissident scientists - generally not experts in the relevant fields - create doubt about the scientific findings via public relations campaigns, lobbying in Congress, and lobbying of the executive branch. These PR campaigns and lobbying efforts generally involve indefensible tactics. As Oreskes and Conway point out, and as demonstrated extremely well in Allan Brandt's excellent book The Cigarette Century, this general approach was pioneered in the 1950s by the tobacco industry in response to emerging epidemiologic and experimental evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoking.
These tactics were used, often effectively, by opponents of efforts to reduce the hazards of smoking, second-hand smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion, and most recently, global warming. Remarkably, a smalll core group of prominent scientists figure over and over again as participants in the generally unprincipled attempts to discredit important scientific findings and their often inconvenient policy implications. These individuals were/are physicists with substantial reputations and impressive records of service in important administrative positions and in important advisory roles at the Federal level. Fred Seitz was a renowned solid state physicist, former head of the National Academy, and former President of Rockefeller University. Bill Nierenberg had been head of the Scripps Institute, and Robert Jastrow had been head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. S. Fred Singer was very well known for his work on satellite development. Oreskes and Conway document very well how these accomplished individuals not merely lent their names to unprincipled campaigns but also participated actively, often using their considerable prestige and access to government policy makers to obstruct the progress of regulatory efforts.
What motivated these distinguished scientists to behave this way and why were they often so successful? Its easy to understand why industries with strong vested interests would attempt to hinder inconvenient regulation. Why, however, would men who had devoted much of their lives to furthering American science, become committed to discrediting major scientific findings? Oreskes and Conway point out that all these figures came of age during or immediately after WWII and were committed Cold Warriors. The version of democracy and capitalism they espoused was the libertarian ideal (actually pseudo-libertarian) of individuals like Hayek and Friedman. When scientific findings pointed to serious negative externalities from markets, and the resulting need for government regulation, free-market fundatmentalist ideology trumped science. Their campaigns were relatively successful partly because they were influential figures and partly because what they had to say was very congenial to influential conservative politicians, notably the Reagan era White House.
This book will be a classic study of how complex scientific issues with unpalatable policy implications are handled by our society. Oreskes and Conway provide an even handed but cumulatively scathing analysis of how the failings of our political system and media facilitate these types of policy distortions. It is also a nice dissection of the powerful conjunction of financial interests and simple-minded ideology. Its clear that we need to find a better way to assess and decide about these types of issues.
94 of 112 people found the following review helpful
The historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway--who is also a longstanding friend and colleague--have set the bar very high in scholarly anaylsis with this book, located in the vital center of the debate about global climate change. "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" is a serious analysis of the opposition to global warming from such contrary scientists as Robert Jastrow, S. Fred Singer, and others. Well documented with 64 pages of endnotes and rigorously analysed, the authors demonstrate the ties between some senior scientists and political and business interests who stand to lose if decisions are taken that direct changes in American policy.
The effort they describe has been built about sowing the seeds of doubt, hence the title, and what Oreskes and Conway would contend is the obfuscation of some entities in the fray. The individuals that have undertaken this effort cut their teeth in the service of corporations that had everything to lose if findings about the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, and acid rain settled in the minds of the public. The continuation of this effort, and its particular permutations in relation to the issue of global climate change, are documented in detail here.
As the authors make clear, it has been obvious since the 1970s that some elements of the business community have been irate about the use of scientific studies by government officials as justification for regulations that circumscribe their actions. Those opposed have been successful largely through a questioning of the science on which the government has based its actions. The authors note that the attack on this science has been so broad and sustained that it represents a coordinated and frightening destabilization of scientific consensus. Oreskes and Conway draw connections between key contrarians of global climate change with their actions earlier in other scientific endeavors, and shows their linkage to key corporations, think tanks, and political groups.
33 of 40 people found the following review helpful
on July 22, 2010
This book made me angry. And it should make you angry as well. The title "Merchants of Doubt" comes from the same line from a tobacco company executive used in a similar book that came out a couple of years ago that I recently reviewed (Doubt is Their Product). The basis, first used by the tobacco industry many years ago, was 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. Yet they carried on a well-funded campaign to confuse and disinform the public.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway are science historians. And what they have uncovered with this book should shock even those who are familiar with some of the tactics used by the professional denialist industry. What is even more shocking 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, and the lesser known but equally deceptive 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 smokestack emissions cause acid rain, CFCs cause ozone depletion, second hand smoke cause 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, but the public won't understand), and of course, using their PR skills, Frank Luntz wordsmithing, and punchy - though meaningless - 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 the conservative legislators they were trying to influence. 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. 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 push their political views. These handful of men have almost single-handedly cost the lives of thousands of Americans and increased the cost to taxpayers millions or even billions of dollars through their denial of the science. Most egregious in this has been S. Fred Singer. First as a denier that smoking caused cancer, then as a denier that CFCs caused ozone depletion, and now as a denier of climate change, Singer has used despicable methods to deceive fellow scientists who were too slow to realize that such deceit was possible from one of their own. What he did to Roger Revelle on his death bed is disgraceful. What he did to Justin Lancaster is despicable. What he and others did to Ben Santer is just one more example showing that the denialist industry, led by these few men and paid for by the biggest industries on the planet, will go to no end to deny any science or destroy any scientist in their path. The recent attacks on climate scientists like Michael Mann and Phil Jones are the latest iterations in the denialist industry's tactics.
And according to Oreskes and Conway, the denialist industry isn't even satisfied denying the present and the future, they have also recently turned to denying the past. You may have heard parroted from people here that the banning of DDT by environmentalists has killed millions of people in Africa. Not true. But the denialist industry has decided it needs to deny ALL science, and that means going back to the 1960s to attack Rachel Carson, whose book "Silent Spring" documented the dangers of widespread pesticide spraying. DDT was banned in the US after it was discovered that it caused the thinning of eggshells in raptors like our national symbol, the Bald Eagle. But like all the other denialist attacks, the idea that the US ban cost lives in Africa is completely false. DDT use actually increased in Africa after it was banned in the US, and in fact is still used today. It just doesn't work any more because the mosquitoes it is supposed to kill gained resistance to it, in part because of the overspraying advocated by the manufacturers to sell more product. But this is just one more case where facts are tossed aside in favor of an ideological promotion of an anti-science agenda designed to further the profit of the few at the expense of the many.
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. As I indicated to open this review, the book made me angry. And we should be angry. And then we should not let them get away with it any longer.
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on June 7, 2013
I came across this book after reading two books on the science of climate change. I, therefore, was familiar with the denial movement's efforts to quash the science in that case. Merchants of Doubt showed me just how this phenomenon was not just an issue with climate science but with many other facets of science. Oreskes and Conway summed it up nicely saying, "Doubt is crucial to science - in the version we call curiosity or healthy skepticism, it drives science forward - but it also makes science vulnerable to misrepresentation, because it is easy to take uncertainties out of context and create the impression that everything is unresolved." This is their culmination of five years of research.
The authors begin, by explaining the doubt that was sowed by the tobacco industry. I think we are all familiar with the manner in which the industry tried to persuade the public that smoking and second hand smoke were not dangerous. This continued on with the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Regan administration where a coordinated attack was made on the concept of a nuclear winter as proposed by Carl Sagan and others. This marked a period where "the right-wing turn against science had begun." The attack on nuclear winter was a prelude to the fights that were to come. Continuing to the subject of acid rain, the authors noted a familiar pattern emerging, and that was that scientific facts were published in peer review scientific journals - where few non-scientists would see them - while all the claims that acid rain was not a problem pushed by the deniers ended up in the mainstream media for all to see.
The next topic was the fight over the ozone hole. The authors explained in detail the counter narrative proposed by the ozone hole deniers despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary - that the ozone depletion was a natural variation "that was being cynically exploited by a corrupt, self-interested, and extremist scientific community to get more money for their research." Really? - no, of course not. This was to be the narrative to be used by the global warming deniers as well. During the 1980s, "an anti-environmentalism had taken root in a network of conservative and libertarian think tanks in Washington," such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Marshall Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These institutes derived their support from businessmen, corporations, and conservative foundations. What the deniers were afraid of was anything that impeded the free markets and the capitalist system, or that caused the government to produce any kind of regulation that might affect business interests according to Fred Singer, a prominent individual in the denier movement.
I particularly liked the section on global warming, having just read two books previously on this "seemingly" controversial subject. The authors show that there is, in fact, no controversy; the climate scientists are correct in their assessments - yes, really! It was the small number of key people, such as Seitz, Jastrow, Nierenberg, and Singer who engaged in a campaign of misinformation, and these people, along with others, can "have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organized, determined, and have access to power." These men had the power by virtue of positions as physicists during the cold war era. This movement has turned into a stealthy financed, powerful, conglomerate of various organizations bent on attacking the science in order to achieve various political and industry goals.
And now we turn our attention to Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring. This book was written in 1962. I have heard the harsh criticism - bordering on contempt - against her by various right-wing media outlets, and I wondered what in the world this woman did over fifty years ago, and why is this decades old debate being reopened. The authors brilliantly cleared up my questions. You might know that Carson brought attention to the indiscriminate use of pesticides in the environment. Eventually, about ten years later, a ban was implemented by Richard Nixon. This turned out to be an example of regulation done well, based on several national level science assessments that confirmed the dangers of the persistent chemical DDT. Well, as the authors point out, "free marketers realized that if you could convince people that an example of successful government regulation wasn't, in fact, successful - that it was actually a mistake - you could strengthen the argument against regulation in general." Also noted is that the environmental movement was shifting from an aesthetic environmentalism towards one more oriented in favor of legal regulation. Ah, now we know why this matter is in the news, and why the attack on Carson. Carson's input was fundamental to this reorientation. If Carson could be proved wrong, then perhaps this reorientation could be shown to be based on a fallacy, and the anti-regulatory powers that be could be vindicated. I don't want to leave out that the authors make a very compelling case showing why DDT failed and why it did not lead to "millions of deaths" as claimed by people such as Steve Milloy (founder of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris) and J. Gordon Edwards (entomologist at San Jose State University) - a phrase that is now repeated by right-wing media outlets. This was a riveting chapter. It read like an intriguing suspense novel!
I found the next chapter on free speech and free markets to be just as riveting. Many of these deniers believe in something that has been called "free market fundamentalism." This basically says the free markets are the only way to run an economic system that will not ultimately destroy our freedoms. However, the authors note that this belief system is uncannily similar to its bête noir - Marxism. They say that like Marxism, laissez-faire economics claimed to be scientific, based upon immutable laws of nature, and also like Marxism, it has not stood the test of experience. If it were a scientific theory, it would have long ago been rejected." They conclude that this fundamentalism is just an article of faith. But it is this "faith" that has resulted in these "fundamentalists" coming to the unbelievable notion that environmentalism is the next great threat to freedom, that it is a slippery path to socialism, that environmentalists are closet socialists, that people in the United Nations are connected to the International Socialist Party and they are the ones in the UN environmental program. I read this and said to myself: Wow, really! It appears that the Cold War Warriors (Jastrow, Seitz, Nierenberg, and others) needed a new threat and found it in environmentalism. But as a more in depth analysis shows, it is all about government regulation; anything that promotes more regulation, even if necessary, is anathema to these people, and, I might add, to the businesses that fund them. The sad part is the nature of the attacks on scientists doing good science. Some have become reluctant to make strong claims or err on the side of conservatism because of fear of attack. It seems that intimidation works. I could go on, but you'll just have to read the book to get the full story.
I highly recommend this book. It does an excellent job of clearing the fog of misinformation that seems so pervasive today. If you have any lingering doubts on any of these subjects or if you wonder what the truth of the matter is in each case, please read the book.
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
This book is fascinating. It takes a look at the techniques used by what could only be called anti-environmentalists. The book posits that there is a core group of scientists and lobbyists, that started working for the pro-cigarette lobby, and that have since moved on and applied similar techniques of fear uncertainty and doubt into the battle for doing nothing about environmental destruction. Now, I will readily admit I am pro environment. I am shocked and saddened by what is going on with our planet, and the assault by the few against the long term health. Having said that, I've had a hard time understanding why intelligent people often are not able to grasp the thin ness of climate destruction deniers. I know they are bombarded on various tv and radio shows, but the appeal of the argument didn't make sense to me until i read this book, and saw the approach as one of an extension of the cold war ... any step towards regulation, even if vital for the health of citizens or the planet or our descendants, is a step towards Communism. Now this is obviously not a particularly appealing argument, but the book did cast the approach in a way that i could understand the philosophical framework for denial.
The book starts with the techniques used to promote the idea that cigarettes might not cause cancer, and does an excellent job showing how funding research was used to set up a set of efforts to cast doubt in the light of overwhelming evidence. It then moves on to many other topics, including acid rain and ozone holes, before moving on to climate destruction. Overall, you can see how the techniques of attacks on science and scientists, along with obfuscation, funding of science efforts that can cast doubt with the general public, constant bombardment of messaging, and lobbying efforts to those who want to receive a message that they can ignore these core issues, have worked.
THe book is well researched and goes into detail about the techniques. While it is obviously pro-environmental, it is not attacking. It is fact based. It is elaborately researched and footnoted. It doesn't take loosey-goosey emotional arguments, but instead looks at one of the critical aspects of climate change activity, and why so little has been done over the past 40 years or so in which we have known that we have a major problem on our hands.
I wish folks who deny climate destruction would read the book with an open mind, but i'm sure it will mostly appeal to those who are in the environmental camp. Even so, it is excellent material for furthering an understanding of what is going on from the lobbying side, and why we have some of the problems that we do today. Disturbing but important to read.
To the authors -- thanks for writing this.
21 of 27 people found the following review helpful
on June 20, 2010
Merchants of Doubt is a powerful critique of the alliance between corporate money and unethical scientists. The corporate sponsors change (from tobacco companies to Exxon), but the results don't--ideological scientists like Fred Singer unfairly and viciously attack fellow scientists who arrive at results they don't like. As Yogi Berra once said, deja vu all over again. This isn't just a history book--disinformation on climate change is happening today. I learned a lot from the chapter on Rachel Carson and DDT, as I had once thought the banning of DDT was responsible for many deaths in Africa.
I would love a sequel to this book, perhaps on the influence of the drug companies on pharmaceutical research. I rarely give 5 star reviews, but Merchants of Doubt deserved it.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on June 30, 2014
This book is a revelation. From my vantage point as a research scientist, Merchants of Doubt solves a mystery that has deeply troubled me for many decades, and in that sense I rank it among the most important contributions to public discourse of the past several decades.
The authors lay out in vivid detail the story behind the "merchants of doubt" -- a small cabal of ideologues with excellent scientific credentials whose purpose is not to refute the science behind such global issues as the dangers of cigarette smoke and climate change but to weave doubt about the science into the public debate around these topics. In concert with their corporate sponsors and with the unwitting (some would say witless) help of a "fair and balanced" media they succeeded in muddying the waters of many an issue in which the science was indisputable. What I hadn't realized before reading this book is that the scientists who lend their names and expertise to this process of obfuscation are doing so not for money, but for ideological reasons that have to do largely with a lingering anti-communism and an almost religious faith in "the magic of the free market". As a scientist myself, I have often wondered why men (and they are invariably men) with good scientific training would engage in the smarmy business of trying to undermine rock-solid scientific evidence. This book shows that my early suspicion that they were simply paid off by corporate interests is wrong. It appears, in fact, that the motivations are related primarily to a profound fear and disdain for government regulation of any kind. What we have here are the machinations of free market ideologues using their scientific credentials to stymie government action of any kind in dealing with large-scale public health and safety issues.
Merchants of Doubt, meticulously researched and elegantly written, should be required reading in every science class in this nation from high school through college. Who could have known that the climate change deniers of today include many of the very same merchants of doubt that go all the way back to denying the dangers of smoking (and of second hand smoke, and of acid rain, and of ozone depletion, etc. etc.) and that the methods used to muddy the waters of public debate are precisely the same? I know I'm repeating myself, but this book is a revelation. Read it along with Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" and Elizabeth Kolbert's "The Sixth Extinction".
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on February 28, 2015
If you want to know the truth about the relatively few men, who used their status as scientists to undermine the dangers of smoking, starting in the 50'x, the possibility of Nuclear Winter in case of nuclear war, the existence of Acid rain, the dangers of second hand smoke, global warming and climate change,, while they were on the payrolls of, the Tobacco Institute, Monsanto, Chevron, Philip Morris and a number of free market capitalism think tanks, who were in turn funded by these same organizations, then this book is a must read.
Son't read this book if you are afraid of the truth and don't want to hear the names of the perpetrators and their cohorts.
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
on September 8, 2013
This book really is well researched. The gist that one gets from this book is that anybody can present the information in a way that fits their preconceptions... granted by showing this fact, the book raises questions about its own journalistic integrity because it glosses over definite factual misrepresentations made by certain environmentalist/left wing people.
So as I said, I came away from this book with a lower view of the human race in general, not just the one side it was making out to be bad (republican capitalists).
But generally I did agree that there appears to be very decent evidence that concerns such as man-generated global changes are not to be trivialized.