Naomi Oreskes’ book Merchants of Doubt, explains “the troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.”
Oreskes and Conway note that what motivates deniers is political ideology, not science. As I argued in Hell and High Water, the reason most political conservatives and libertarians deny the reality of human-induced climate change is that they simply cannot stand the solution. So they attack both the solution and the science (see “Krauthammer, Part 2: The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science“).
Climate Progress reviewed the must-read book here, concluding, “Merchants is an impressive and disturbing piece of scholarship that does a good job of answering the questions they pose. It should be read by every editor and every member of Congress, and by climate scientists as well.”
The prolific UC San Diego professor discusses the history of the anti-science disinformation campaign from the tobacco industry to climate change in this recent video interview:
Gore’s Reality Project put together a shorter, produced video on the subject that it ran during “24 hours of reality”:
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Carrying the tobacco analogy into the current climate debate, we need Obama to play the role that the surgeon general did in 1964. It’s time for him to call out the deniers–clearly and unequivocally. The Huntsman-Perry exchange has primed the media pump. Perhaps, when stops Keystone XL…wait I must have been dreaming.
Thank you for the links to Merchants of Doubt and the wonderful interview with Naomi Oreskes. Troubling, yes; not sure what to think about it though. Merchants of Doubt is a cause for optimism, isn’t it; scientists and activists overcame the tobacco corporations, humanity stopped destroying itself? So then won’t scientists and activists be able to overcome the fossil fuel industry too? But then, it took 40 years to stop the tobacco industry which is a cause for pessimism. We do not have 40 years to beat the fossil fuel industry, and if you believe Hansen, as I do, with the Keystone pipeline deployed, it will be too late to avoid a climate change catastrophe. This of course is the dilemma which fuels our activism – and our fears. But it is the argument for optimism which is the only possible choice since that is the only possible chance we will avoid the ultimate catastrophe even if in the end we fail.
Naomi is a hero! Her work is invaluable, showing the pitfalls of our current democracy.
She gave her excellent talk here in BC…
http://www.pics.uvic.ca/webstream.php
Yes, this book is a very useful resource for informing the denier lobby as to why they think like they do I refer to it often.
It seems that Oreskes has, as has Al Gore and his Climate Reality, fallen foul of Russell Seitz judging from what has appeared on the thread over at Deltoid
Sietz considers Oreskes work of poor scholarship it would appear.
BTW all links embedded in the article are circular and return to this article.
Naomi Oreskes, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf. Three reasons to name your daughter Naomi.
Yep, it is entirely political and that should not be minimized. That is why nothing has been done. The conservatives in the Senate would not bring the House passed climate bill to a vote and President Obama would not spend political capital to fight for it. That was a couple of years ago and now all environmental regulations, not just limits to GHG, have become “job killers.” The politics are completely obvious, no information campaign will ever be effective, and it is not entirely a top-down effort. The conservative voter might want clean air and water but they will reflexively oppose any kind of pricing scheme on atmospheric carbon. Most of the ones who will participate in the upcoming election have already made up their minds on global warming and, for them, climate legislation supporters are simply socialists who want an excuse to allow big government to further limit free enterprise. The opposition to climate legislation is political and ideological and is completely independent of science. It doesn’t really matter what science says, conservatives do not what more big government regulation…it is that simple. The American farmer is absolutely sure any climate bill will increase his operating costs and many Americans, conservatives and independents, are convinced it would raise utility bills and liquid fuel prices. So to bring a job killing climate bill before congress President Obama must address not only how climate change is not a hoax, but also how a climate bill will not kill jobs and, in this time of global recession, it will not cost anyone anything, especially the middle-class. I don’t think any politician wants that kind of fight in an elections year. President Obama wants to have the jobs and debt reduction fight with conservatives. It has a much wider appeal and it is easier to attack conservatives as anti-jobs. Hard to attack conservatives for being anti-science and opposing a big government solution to climate change when they so enthusiastically embrace that position.
Meanwhile, given how vitally important this issue is, it is alarming how little attention the liberal media pays to climate change compared with all the other political issues. Much more time has been wasted on birth certificates and irrelevant personalities like Trump than on climate change over the past three years.
>”Meanwhile, given how vitally important this issue is, it is alarming how little attention the liberal media pays to climate change compared with all the other political issues….”
Has anyone noticed the wealth of ‘feel good’ ads from Exxon/Shell/Chevron/et al running on all networks lately? These expensive ads tout the ‘breakthroughs’ these companies claim to be making in cleaner energy, and tell us that the Tar Sands oil will help to satisfy our cravings for energy “far into the future.” They make it sound like they are pouring their full financial resources into their dubious greening activities, while in truth it amounts to no more than a few millions of dollars. The unspoken message is, of course, “Go back to sleep America. We’re taking care of you.” Since ad revenue is the bread and butter of the TV networks and paper media, are they intimidated due to fear of the loss of this revenue stream if they report news unfavorable to the oil and energy companies?
At the end, Oreskes talks about our common preference to follow good news. She points to the doubt mongers’ version of good news that lets folk believe we don’t have to change our ways, not yet. She compares that version to the bad news, the truth that one would rather not hear.
I need to take a fresh look at “Merchants of Doubt” to see what else they wrote. How do we honestly meet a deep felt need for good news? How do we honestly handle bad news, either as messenger or audience?
I’m reminded of the sheriff in Pointe Coupee Parish LA who was videotaped on May 2 while preparing his audience for what could happen if the levees along the Mississippi failed. He spoke with unerring calm, and had a plan for each successively worse scenario, right up to a near total inundation of the parish.
We need more like him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMaMSs1k65A&feature=related
“How do we honestly meet a deep felt need for good news?”
The good news is that reducing emissions is much easier than the deniers claim. For instance, I put solar panels on my house and bought an electric car and reduced my personal CO2 emissions by 50%. The only real effects on my lifestyle is that I no longer pay huge electric bills or tons of money for gasoline.
Reducing our emissions by the 80 to 90% that we ultimately need will be hard, but we have some time for that. Making reductions of 30 to 50% right away is not trivial but it is not nearly as difficult as the deniers claim.
They like to say all kinds of crazy things like “The warmers want us all living in caves and walking to work, and the want to destroy the economy.”
The truth, and the good news is that significant, near term reductions can be made without major effects on our society. Most of the effects that will occur are in fact positive. Most Americans wouldn’t even notice the changes. All we have to do is get going. So far we haven’t even tried.
Your optimism is wonderful.Sorry to say I do not share it. I cannot afford what you have purchased and neither can most people. Ridding ourselves of globally 35 billion tons per year of CO2 emissions in time to avoid exceeding Hansen’s Target of 450 PPM seems highly unlikely to me.
Naomi tells it all- brutal honesty. We live in a society of denial.
Merchants of Doubt – cracking book. I read it a few weeks back and would recommend it to everyone – it needs to be turned into a proper documentary film.