Reddit reviews Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The book Merchants of Doubt is an incredibly illuminating (and depressing!) read for how supposedly "objective" scientific claims can be bought and paid for by the highest bidder, with a little help from statistics and PR.

After reading Merchants of Doubt, the science seems pretty clear that global warming exists and is pretty serious. Think acid rain, DET, and and the effects of tobacco smoke.

There is a whole industry dedicated to suppressing science that might have a negative effect on industry.

http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331081005&sr=1-1

and

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331081005&sr=1-2

It depends. The default setting for reddit is that submissions below a certain threshold (I forget) simply do not appear. Comments and submissions can get downvoted to oblivion.

The position of the alarmists is that the matter is settled, and that anyone expressing doubt is trying to muddy the waters in order to further some nefarious agenda. There is a whole genre of books with this theme. One example is the loathsome 'Merchants of Doubt'

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

On the 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:' section of the page above you can see other examples of this idea.

Edit: sorry for double post. bad connection.

You can make anything controversial. Manufacturing controversy isn't that hard. Vast majority of the arguments against Prop 4 had no logic.

You should read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596916109/

This is great book on this topic Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

There are really only dozen or so arguments that climate change deniers use time and time again. This book deals with them. Its an easier read than some statistical analysis of temperatures changes in the west Antarctic peninsula.

You realize The Fraser Institute was claiming the science was out on the link between cigarettes and cancer long after the link was well-established, right?

Read Merchants of Doubt, or watch the movie. This is not an accident. This is a well-funded disinformation campaign.

I wouldn't expect you to find it amusing but it highlights potential dangers. However I find it hypocritical that you follow up with a baseless statement that:

>For every one person who got lung cancer, supposedly from smoke, supposedly second hand, there's a person who lived to 70 or 80 who smoked.

Cigarettes sold by international companies are actually far better than the local cigarettes which have about twice the tar content. As for whether there's a link between smoking and cancer I don't think this is even worth debating.

I'd suggest checking out "Merchants of Doubt" to read more about how easy it is for companies and scientists to introduce doubt to obscure the truth.

Sweet summer child.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/

http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/17/the-hoax-of-climate-denial/

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/05/republicans-want-to-make-the-epa-great-again-by-gutting-health-regulations/

https://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/new-video-links-between-big-tobacco-and-climate-denial-rhymes-with-smoky-joe/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/why-is-big-tobacco-funding-climate-change-skeptics/169312/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

http://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/

(Edit: also, there isn't exactly a large pool of competent scientists to pick from for Pruitt's "side," so yeah, I guess I am saying they could be incompetent)