Gadget by The Blog Doctor.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Naomi Oreskes: Merchants of Doubt

To me it is overwhelmingly clear that the great majority of people qualified to make a judgement on climate change are convinced that the planet is warming and that it is largely the fault of humans. My evidence of this view is found in this post.

Why then do so many people deny the obvious? Naomi Oreskes explains the origins and tactics of the deniers in the video below. It is long but well worth viewing.

UPDATE: When I wrote this I thought that a climate change denier might find it and make a comment. I was surprised that this attracted a different type of denier - a tobacco denier! I didn't know that such people existed.

1 comment:

ct99246 said...

The only ones who are lying about tobacco are the anti-smokers. They are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies over a period of over 20 years, which prove that human papillomavirus infects at least a quarter of all non-small cell lung cancers. It doesn't require a university degree to figure out that ignoring evidence is fraud! And because the anti-smokers' studies are based on nothing but lifestyle, they're designed to cynically exploit the circumstance that smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been infected, in falsely blame tobacco.


Furthermore, those so-called "opponents" she denounces are nothing but phonies, because they never mention HPV, or anything else that really refutes the anti-smokers. Their real job is to drown out the real critics, with the collaboration of lying media, to create the false impression of dissent, and their weak strawman arguments are intended to provoke provoke public derision. It's the anti-smokers themselves who give the phonies a forum, and censor the real critics, and then lie to us that they presented "both sides of the issue"!

And she is concealing the fact that the same anti-smoker who lobbied for the EPA to take up the issue of secondhand smoke, John C. Topping Jr., subsequently went on to found the Climate Institute.


And she's concealing the fact that Seitz' association with the tobacco industry was really to monitor Stanley Prusiner's work on prions, which was being funded by R.J. Reynolds after the Rockefeller Institute, with which Seitz had been associated, stopped doing so. (Why was smokers' money being used to fund prion research in the first place? Apparently purely as a crony favor.) Any so-called "historian of science" who can't ferret out the fact that Seitz was merely doing site visits on Prusiner, and had nothing to do with tobacco research, is nothing but a propagandist hack!


Yours truly,
Carol Thompson