Memorable quote of the film: "Doubt is our product"
Really terrific documentary. Watched for a grad school class I'm taking on Green Politics and public policy. Was interesting that they started off with past examples of this type of organized deception campaign (essentially), smoking being the big one. It's remarkable that they were able to get interviews with the guys (noticed there were no women) who are hired by the companies to argue the "climate denier" side; one of them just had absolutely no compunction about what he's done and continues to do, whether it's giving completely misleading information or posting the email addresses of scientists who are then harassed. Both eye-opening and quite depressing, honestly.

I like that we're shown how this campaign has really been so well orchestrated and the planning and careful strategy that goes into it. For example, as people come to believe in climate change more and more, the denial side evolves from outright denial, to then saying it's not bad, then that it's not manmade, etc. So that they're always pushing the envelope enough that they need to, but not so far that people will be able to easily dismiss them. Because as the scientists (and the fake experts) say, the science behind all of this is complicated and hearing the details can be very dry; the one-liners that deniers give are much easier to hang on to and make for much better TV.

Don't think most people realize how little disagreement there is in the scientific community about climate change—meaning, basically none. But when there are segments on television, they always have one person from each "side," even though one of them is representing 99% of the scientific community and the other is only representing the remaining 1% (or less, whatever it is). To a viewer though, it makes it seem like this is a controversial issue, hotly debated in the scientific community ... and it's not!

Look forward to reading the book as well. Books are always able to go more in depth and so while I enjoyed the documentary a great deal, I'm hoping we get more insight into the companies, maybe off-the-record interviews or something. I also still don't completely get the motivation for the used-to-be reputable scientists who argue the denier side; there is an explanation given about how in the end, to them it comes down to being against socialism, and giving into the environmental side means more regulation, less free market, and that's what they want to avoid above all. ... But if they are able to realize the situation, do they not realize that it doesn't really matter if the US is socialist or not if in 100 years most of humanity is dead? It's easy to understand the motivation of the companies ($) and of the fake experts ($), but that's not the driver for the handful of people who are actually grounded in reality yet on that side of things.

That the climate debate has been sullied by the involvement of the fossil fuel industry is unfortunate. Naturally they don't want any restrictions. None of this should matter to the basic science.

Merchants of Doubt asserts that we've been tricked by the likes of conservative think tanks, who are opposed to government interventions, and the interests of the fossil fuel industry. I have no doubt that these groups are opposed to AGW on grounds other than the science. But there are scientists who disagree with the majority opinion. The film insinuates that there are fictitious names on the opposing "Oregon Petition," such as Dr. Charles Darwin and Michael J. Fox, but it doesn't go on to track down those signatories and prove this: it could very well be that we do have a contemporary Dr. Charles Darwin, for example.

But more than this, the film isn't about the science: it's about the supposed conspiracy against the science. We're told that the Climategate emails have been looked into ---"nothing much." Many would disagree with this and would argue that the Climategate emails reveal a close-knit group of scientists who are all-too-willing to attack the messenger rather than the arguments-- and this flaw is at the heart of the film as well. It consistently attacks the messengers of doubt, and not the reasons for that doubt.

What are the reasons for doubt? The film says nothing at all about the notorious hockey stick-- the graph produced by Michael Mann et al that showed 1998 as the warmest year in the last 1000 years. There's a good reason the film doesn't mention this: it's been thoroughly debunked. Here's the "trick" that Merchants of Doubt is playing on you: they are telling you that the science is settled, but they aren't telling you that in 2001 in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC Mann's hockey stick played a central role, and that this graph was used to convince governments around the world that the planet was heating up faster now than in the past 1000 years, while in fact at that time there was contrary evidence showing a medieval period warmer than today, and this issue is still "unsettled." The 1990 IPCC Report also showed a medieval period warmer than today, and the Climategate emails tell us of the efforts to get rid of the medieval warm period-- notice they aren't looking for objective facts but they have an agenda, just as they did when Mann's hockey stick took central place despite contrary evidence and, more importantly, despite that the graph was never checked for accuracy. It turns out that there's no statistical basis for this graph: it should never have been used, and the story can be found by searching for "What is the hockey stick debate about?" by McKitrick. This is shoddy science at work; this is cherry picking evidence to suit the theory.

We hear about climate change and sea level rise and storms, but none of this is proof that CO2 is the cause. A study, "US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895" by D'Aleo has shown that natural weather patterns are more significant than CO2 and better explain the current climate.

Look at James Hansen's predictions about climate catastrophe: he's been largely wrong all along.

I believe we need to use fewer fossil fuels, and we need alternative energy. I don't agree with much of what the conservatives say but they are right that we should beware of an over-reaching government. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but maybe most people don't understand that most of the projected increase in temperature has to do with knock-on effects of an even more potent greenhouse gas: water vapor. Clouds. There are many variables involved so we don't know for sure if increased water vapor will cool or heat. What we really need to do now is look closely at the science and at the methods and activities of the IPCC; since so much is at stake, we need to make sure that the IPCC is correct and the science is correct. We need a rigorous audit of the IPCC, something that has never been done despite common belief that it's all rigorously peer reviewed. Here is an appropriate comment (in light of the film's analogies to card tricks) on the IPCC's workings by Ross McKitrick in "What is Wrong with the IPCC": "Simple card tricks often work by adding in steps that seem to make the outcome impossible, but which in reality have no effect. For example, if the card that needs to be revealed is known to be at the top of the deck, it is a simple matter to shuffle the deck repeatedly without changing the position of the top card. While it looks like the entire deck has been randomized, in reality the shuffle was neutralized with respect to the one card that matters.Drawing attention to the number and speed of shuffles adds to the effect, but is irrelevant. The analogy applies to the IPCC review process. At some stages the review process is open, rigorous and transparent, taking in a wide range of views. But there is a subsequent re-write under the control of a small group of Lead Authors that is not open and not subject to review."

The main argument against the greenhouse effect is that the IPCC science and projections have been biased, and there's good evidence for that. So are we getting the real story? The situation may be serious, but to me the more serious question is this: are we auditing the science as carefully as we should be? Let's do this first.

So see the movie, but with your eyes open.

I might be the teacher that made you watch this. I love it because it describes how the scientific process works, how science is peer-reviewed and vetted and supported with evidence, and, most notably, what a scientific debate is (not global warming) and what is a debate about the role of government (global warming here). With so much information on the Web, media literacy and health literacy is so important to shape opinions and policies that can have a positive impact on all of us. It is important to understand stakeholder’s positions and if they are proposing policies that make them richer or more powerful and deceiving those who lack media and health literacy for their own benefit. The global warming debates would be so much more productive is deception was not involved; it is not about the science, but we could have a meaningful discussion on what we are willing and not willing to do about it. I bet we could find a lot more common ground.

Sometimes "freedom" as an idea can cause us to lose sight of the fact that we have decided to pass laws and to live under the rule of law for the wellbeing of all citizens in our country. Rather than vilifying the "evil regulations" that take away our "freedom" maybe we could realize that there is a tremendous financial, social, and moral cost associated with doing nothing. If you don't regulate pollution then you shouldn't be surprised to find it showing up in your furniture, your water, your air, your food, and your own physical body and the bodies of your children.

Watch this movie if you want to understand how you were conned into believing that those evil regulations from Washington and the environmental crazies are "bad guys" and that corporations, consumers, the free market are the "good guys." We were conned, plain, and simple.

Jaw dropping revelations, every American and every person on earth should watch and learn. Watch it not once but several times, then donate it to your local library (or better, buy another to donate). In light of recent findings that flame retardants are a primary cause of the thyroid cancer epidemic, the information in this movie is even more astounding. It is curious how difficult it is to buy this dvd on Amazon, with search not working quite right, format warnings that it may not play in the US, and every rising price. Was 15 bucks initially. Are making dvds, blueray discs costs going up, as the price is now 20. One would think if demand is rising so much, it shouldnt be too hard or more expensive to press more discs, to the contrary it should be getting cheaper. There is a dvd and a blueray disc in this package. It is not an understatement to say life on earth depends on earthlings seeing this movie and taking action so pay the 20, pay the 30 just so the information gets out....as the impediments for getting it out grow curiouser and curiouser.

Even if you disagree with climate change I implore you to watch this. This is not just about climate change but about how companies create massive PR campaigns to create fake interest and how mainstream media companies (such as CNN and FOX) enable them to have a platform to lie to you.

A good place to start, if your trying to figure out who is responsible for the lack of government action on important issues.

It's what happening today and around the world.