Basic Information : Synopsis : Characters : Expectations : Thoughts : Evaluation : Book Group : New Words : Book References : Good Quotes : Table of Contents : References
Basic Information:
Author:
Naomi Oreskes, Erik M Conway
Edition:
epub on Libby from the San Francisco Public Library
Publisher:
Bloomsbury Publishing
ISBN:
1596916109 (ISBN13: 9781596916104)
Start
Date:March 18, 2020
Read
Date: May 1, 2020
357
pages
Genre:
History, Science, Global Warming
Language
Warning: None
Rated
Overall: 2½ out of 5
History:
3 out of 5
Synopsis:
The
point of this book is to expose who through doubt over the
conclusions which the majority of top level scientists are reaching.
The authors trace how the same group of scientists, and yes they are
scientists, have gone from creating the weapons of the Cold War to
defending the free market of America. The principle object is to
remove shackles from the marketplace.
But
in doing so, they have taken half-truth, doubt and problematic
theories to counteract what most scientists would consider evidence
for the effects of smoking, that acid rain exists, the ozone hole is
growing, the effects of second=-hand smoke, and that global warming
is in our future.
This
book was written about ten years before I read it. We are still
debating many of these propositions when they should be recognized as
being established science.
Cast of Characters:
- Frederick Seitz-(July 4, 1911 – March 2, 2008) was an American physicist and a pioneer of solid state physics. Seitz was the 4th president of Rockefeller University from 1968–1978, and the 17th president of the United States National Academy of Sciences from 1962–1969. Seitz was the recipient of the National Medal of Science, NASA's Distinguished Public Service Award, and other honors. He founded the Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and several other material research laboratories across the United States. Seitz was also the founding chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a tobacco industry consultant and a prominent skeptic on the issue of global warming. From Wikipedia
- S. Fred Singer-an Austrian-born American physicist, climate change denier and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his rejection of scientific consensus on the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, that between chlorofluoro compounds and stratospheric ozone loss,[2] his public downplaying of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an advocate for climate change denial. From Wikipedia
- Bill Nierenberg-an American physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project and was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography from 1965 through 1986.[1] He was a co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984. From Wikipedia
- Robert Jastrow-an American astronomer and planetary physicist. He was a NASA scientist, populist author and futurist.
- Kent Jeffreys-director of environmental studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C -- May 26, 1992, Cato Institute In an article mention on the Competitive Enterprise Institute Kent Jeffreys is identified with the Heritage Foundation in 1995. We find Jeffreys in a very short period of time holding prominent positions, being published by Cato Institute, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution as Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute as Adjunct Scholar, and affiliated with Heritage Institute. Kent Jeffreys is a Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis in 2001. From Sourcewatch
- Patrick J. Michaels-an American former agricultural climatologist.[1][2] Michaels was a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute until Spring 2019. Until 2007, he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980. He collaborated with Fred Singer to attack the scientific consensus on ozone depletion from 1991. He joined the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank founded by Charles and David Koch, and receives significant funding from the fossil fuel industry[5][6] both directly and through front groups.[7] He has described policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as "Obamunism". From Wikipedia
Expectations:
- Recommendation: Philosophy Talk
- When: September 26, 2019
- Date Became Aware of Book: September 26, 2019-even though I have sense I have heard of this book before
- How come do I want to read this book: It seems very appropriate for today's scoffing about what scientists agree on.
- What do I think I will get out of it? Hopefully methods for picking through conflicting science statements
Thoughts:
Some
overall thoughts on the book. As my evaluation noted, I really wanted
to like the book. There is a lot which the authors present which I
agree with. But they are strident and have gone overboard throwing so
many references in that you are overwhelmed in the reading.
I
am also left with the thought that as the authors trace through
smoking is harmful, ozone layer diminishing, second hand smoke,
climate change, and global warming, how can a handful of scientists
be this skillful in so many subjects which are outside of their
expertise and not be noticed before? Or be considered authoritative
outside of their subject matter?
Introduction
Ben
Santer is the person who Oreskes opens the book with. According to
Wikipedia,
he is
a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and
former researcher at the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit. He also worked at the Max Planck Institute for
Meteorology from 1987 to 1992. He specializes mainly in statistical
analysis of climate data sets, and detection/attribution of climate
change forcings.
He
and others have shown the world is warming. He is doing this by
showing the atmospheric layer closest to the earth is warming
(troposphere), but the next layer (stratosphere) is cooling.
The
book asks the question, are their sides in a scientific debate? Of
course there is. Much of science is about interpretation as well as
working through the underlying facts. From the authors perspective,
much of what is being talked about is settled science. There are
people who are trying to create commercial bends to science for their
own interests.
To
me, there are no settled scientific debates. When Copurnicus and
Galelio were figuring out the skies, the scientific settled rules
were that the earth was the center of the universe. When Darwin came
along, it was settled that God created the earth all which was in
there in seven days. If there was debate about what should be allowed
to talk about, then we still would not have such a good description
of the world we live in.
I
think what the authors are really trying to say is that there is a
group of scientist who are trying to ignore research by presenting
false or incomplete research. Also that even when they are confronted
with overwhelming facts, they try to discount them. Should these
people be given equal time as those were the facts are established?
Probably not.
1
Doubt Is Our Product
Talks
about how the tobacco industry funded research to distract from
scientific findings of smoking causing cancer.
Frederick
Seitz is introduced as a prominent physicist. From the author’s
perspective, Seitz rode his prominence as a scientist to be a
scientist for hire by any who wanted to refute a scientific finding..
The
author's premise is that the tobacco industry wanted to fund research
to refute the scientific findings that smoking causes cancer. If that
was not found, then at least cause doubt.
The
tobacco industry pushed for balanced reporting. Balanced as being
defined to equal time rather than weighing the arguments and
presenting them with discernment of their respective weight. The
authors argue that this is good for a two-party political system, but
not good for science. They state the reason for this is that science
is not opinion.
While that might be true, it is about perspective-how do you look at
things.
From
my perspective, this is not the place of the press. They are to
report facts rather than interpret the facts. Are we not able to
understand research? Probably not the deep down research, but we
should be able to understand the concepts being presented and the
rational. If not, then we do not need to be given the information. We
will be led around like a dog on a leash.
The
authors talk about peer review. They state that claims
that have not gone through that process--or have gone through it and
failed--are not scientific.
Research reporting needs to go through this process where other
scientists impartially review papers, critiquing them and getting
them revised. Here the authors place too much on scientists being
sort of impartial automatons. Each person comes in from their own
perspectives and views. They are not without their own opinions about
what is valid and what is not, as well as their own colleagues' work.
There
is the claim that people like Seitz and the various companies he has
worked for do not care about scientific facts, rather than creating
doubt in a body of work which is against the companies.
Doubt-mongering
also works because we think science is about facs-cold, hard,
definite facts. If someone tells us that things are uncertain, we
think that the science is muddled.
They go on by defeating their own hypothesis by saying that doubt
is crucial to science:
they note that science is a process of discovery. Isn’t this what
Seitz is essentially saying? That there may be other factors than
what we have found so far? Therefore, do not rule and regulate
industries based upon incomplete facts?
No
proof
becomes the mantra
of nearly every campaign in the last quarter century to fight facts.
But aren’t the authors arguing more that they do not like the
doubters' conclusions? They themselves say that there is no
proof
to the doubters' claims.
2
Strategic Defense, Phony Facts, and the Creation of the George C.
Marshall Institute
Chapter
has a lot to do with how you argue about something.
This
book was published in 2010. They talk about those who were defending
the tobacco industry as creating an alternate
body of “facts”.
In 2017, Kellyanne Conway made alternate
facts
famous in defending President’s Trump’s view about how this was
the most attended inauguration ever. Seems like Conway’s defense is
within the family tree of how to defend that which is not true.
They
quote CS Lewis, which I am always a sucker for in The
Four Loves
as The
very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence ; the absence of
smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden
and A
belief in invisible cats cannot be logically disproved … [it]
tells us a good deal about those who hold it.
Of course, what Lewis is referring to here, would probably be
different than what Oreskes may think is good. Lewis is refuting that
male friendship is related to homsezuality. Still points to the
author for quoting Lewis, even though she is referencing pages 60 and
61 when in reality it is 90 and 91.
The
authors note that Jastrow and Moyniham were arguing about from Soviet
dominance, even though they did not have facts. Instead they tried to
argue from a standpoint of loudness. The louder they spoke the more
right they were.
There
is a natural disbelief in arguments put up by opponents. When the
Union of Concerned Scientists put up a study, there is a tendency to
think they are looking for facts to fit the theory rather than a
theory to fit the facts. This works for both sides to a question.
Seitz
thinks that models are bad science. I too wonder about models. I do
not know why Seitz thinks so. But to me, a model represents your view
of things. So you will put in programming to fit your view of things.
So to me a model can help you figure stuff out, to clue you in. It
may also help to lead you to discover something. But it is only a
useful tool if it accurately depicts reality.
But
a good model will aid in the understanding of things. The book talks
about Freeman Dyson trying to refute a particular model and could
not.
Betrayers
of the Truth
by William Broad and Nicholas Wade points out that there are places
where scientists error. Sometimes by accident and sometimes to
achieve the ends they desire. But they also acknowledge that most
scientists are honest about their work and try to remain true to the
work of science.
The
National Academy of Science is tied to the President. So they tend to
be more conservative in their views, not differing from established
science.
3
Sowing the Seeds of Doubt: Acid Rain
Oreskes
noted that the effort to clean the air through taller smokestacks,
along with other air cleansing efforts probably lead to the rise of
acid rain.
There
is a discussion about what entirely
entails in science. There are always questions to be answered about
our world and the interactions. But that does not mean that a
reasonable person cannot assess a reasonable cause and effect. The
doubters-actually those who want to establish doubt, want a 100%
conclusion.
The
Tragedy of the Commons,
an essay by biologist Garrett Hardin states that our individual goods
may undermine the common good.
They
quote Singer with a bit of a quote which sort of indicates that
Noah’s contemporaries would not believe the messenger of doom. So
what would wake our generation? This sounds more like someone who is
wanting to make sure people knew that the road they were on would be
disastrous rather than the Singer the authors present as nothing is
conclusive. The authors do go on and say that Singer’s view
changed.
The
book indicates that protecting the environment did not cause economic
devastation or massive job loss nor cost the 100’s of billions of
dollars predicted by the affected companies.
4
Constructing a Counternarrative: The Fight over the Ozone Hole
The
authors raise the question about Singer: If
a scientist consistently rejects the weight of evidence, and repeats
arguments that have been thoroughly rebutted by his colleges, we are
entitled to ask, What really is going on?
The authors have an answer. Singer was gathered in both money and
attention-things which normal scientists do not get.
5
What's Bad Science? Who Decides? The Fight over Secondhand Smoke
Dealing
with second hand smoke,animal tests verified a similar pattern as
what was found in humans. But the doubters felt that just because
animals exhibited similar traits, would humans under the same
circumstances. But you cannot run harmful experiments on humans, so
this was a question which could not be answered.
The
authors make the claim that those like Singer when they were
promoting sound
science
really meant it as a way to defend the tobacco industry.
The
book, Bad
Science
was a place which the tobacco industry could launch their attacks
from. It usually came about that it was because they were promoting
that we are over regulated. The routine was sort of circular-make a
headline, get quoted in the media, then reference the quote to prove
something.
The
authors have an annoying habit of casting people in a bad light. Such
as when they write the somebody acknowledged,
no doubt grinning as he wrote.
This is trying to shape a pretty weak statement which follows into
something evil. Shows a lot of prejudice.
Singer
and Jeffreys built a case by alleging the EPA was seeking a ban on
smoking-they were not. Also they indulged in bad science because the
EPA felt that the amount of damage by second hand smoke was linear in
terms of the amount of smoking exposed to.
The
authors go back to claim that no scientific claim is legit until it
has past peer review.
I
do not think the authors are expressing the confidence percentage
correctly. They are expressing it in terms that if something is 90%
confidence, that 9 out of 10 times, the theory is right; 95%
confidence it is 19 out 20 times. They then bring in that if you are
in Vegas, winning 51% of the time is great. Not sure the two are
related.
They
say that whatever confidence level is chosen is a matter of social
convention. It could be any confidence level. Is this right?
Statisticians
and type 1 and type 2 errors. What are these? From Wikipedia:
In
statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the rejection of a
true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive"
finding or conclusion), while a type II error is the non-rejection of
a false null hypothesis (also known as a "false negative"
finding or conclusion). Much of statistical theory revolves around
the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete
elimination of either is a statistical impossibility for
non-deterministic algorithms. By selecting a low threshold (cut-off)
value and modifying the alpha (p) level, the quality of the
hypothesis test can be increased. The knowledge of Type I errors and
Type II errors is widely used in medical science, biometrics and
computer science.
6
The Denial of Global Warming
We
get to the heart of the author’s concerns: global warming.
They
start off with when was global warming accepted by scientists? In
2004, both Discover
and National
Geographic
stated that there was scientific consensus that global warming was a
reality. The authors note that the International Panel on Climate
Change had accepted this in 1995.
So
why is it still a matter of contention in the United States? The
authors believe that one of the reasons-they do not allocate a
portion of it--is the trio Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred
Singer.
Global
warming is not a simple linear equation. It has a lot of variables
which affects the general trend. This includes clouds, winds and
ocean currents. Such as the ocean being a heat sink damped the
amount of atmospheric warming. Picture the ocean as having the
capacity to capture heat. But it does have a capacity. Consequently
as it reaches its limits, the efficiency of capture decreases and the
atmosphere heats up. This can disguise the effects of carbon build
up.
Who
are the Jason’s? an
independent group of elite scientists which advises the United States
government on matters of science and technology, mostly of a
sensitive nature. The group was first created as a way to get a
younger generation of scientists—that is, not the older Los Alamos
and MIT Radiation Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the
government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30
and 60 members. Its work first gained public notoriety as the source
of the Vietnam War's McNamara Line electronic barrier. Although most
of its research is military-focused, JASON also produced early work
on the science of global warming and acid rain. Current unclassified
research interests include health informatics, cyberwarfare, and
renewable energy.
From Wikipedia
The
authors try to frame that this committee report and its conclusions
were seven chapters-five were concerned and sounded the alarm about
global warming. But two of the chapters dealt with economics and were
casting doubt on the cost effectiveness of dealing with global
warming. These are what got the publicity.
There
is an explanation that natural scientists are not concerned about the
variability of temperature changes, but about rapid,
unidirectional change forced by carbon dioxide.
I wonder if any of that phrase is not true, should we be concerned?
Such as if the change is because of something other than carbon
dioxide?
Those
who opposed the report noted that there was a correspondence between
sunset cycles and tree ring reporting of an end of a 200 year cycle
and that we are in line for a cooling trend. This was in 1989. The
authors say that the report cherry-picked data and only emphasized
one component of the report.
Enter
a Roger Revelle. a
scientist and scholar who was instrumental in the formative years of
the University of California San Diego and was among the early
scientists to study anthropogenic global warming, as well as the
movement of Earth's tectonic plates
From Wikipedia
Singer
signed him up to co-author a report. But Singer wrote most of it
because Revelle was ailing. The authors speculate that Revelle did
not agree with the article. They did find one bit of unpublished
notes which tends to agree with this speculation. The other thing is
that much of the article is not consistent with what Revelle had
published before. The authors use this as another layer that Singer
and gang are being underhanded in their approach.
It
was noted that those who were studying this issue faced the same
issue as those who studied weak radio signals-how to remove the
static from the signal.
Taylor
and Penn showed that human actions were influencing the climate. But
the mechanisms are complex and not entirely straightforward.
Ben
Santor turns out to be one of the leading authors of global warming
information from top scientists. In his chapter on global warming, he
had four lead authors and 32 contributing authors.
Author’s
statement: If
anyone was meddling in the scientific assessment and peer review
process, it was the political rightwing, not the left.
Of course, from both the tone of this book and from a few places I
have been reading about her, I suspect she has more left leanings
politically than right. So I doubt she would write this kind of book
to go after her own.
The
authors talk about that whom you associate with will mark your
opinions and the type of opinion it is. In this case, the authors
note that Nierenberg’s siding with Singer, associated himself with
Singer and an opinion of political rather than scientific nature. Of
course, this is the author’s opinion, I doubt that Nierenberg would
say this.
...small
numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially, if
they are organized, determined and have access to power.
7
Denial Rides Again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson
Rachel
Carson is attacked as being responsible for genocidal type numbers of
deaths because she advocated the banning of DDT.
Prior
to this chapter, the authors had identified individuals and groups
which were organized to prevent regulations governing industries.
When they attacked Rachel Carson, they were trying to show how when
regulation went wrong this was not something just a minor item, but
that millions of people died because of her campaign against DDT. The
argument against her was that because she successfully fought against
DDT, countries were not able to fight malaria effectively.
Carson’s
argument was that it was not inappropriate application of DDT was the
issue, but DDT got into the food chain even if applied correctly.
This was causing breakdown of the food chain from fish to eagles and
even human babies were being affected-the term was bioaccumulation.
She, along with other biologists, showed that DDT worked exactly as
designed-to kill or upset the metabolic entities of an organism.
The
basic argument against Carson was that she had elevated that
environmental controls were more important than human lives. This was
not true as Carson showed how DDT also affected humans.
The
authors make the argument that the banning of DDT affected humans in
such a way that it affected the world humans lived in. Such as if DDT
decmimate birds, humans would not be able to enjoy their songs. This
seems like a pretty weak argument.
The
authors bring up State
of Fear
by Michael Crichton. Not having read the book, the authors state that
there is a line in there which indicated that banning DDT killed more
people than Hitler. The American Enterprise Institution promoted the
book. But I am not sure why on both parts since Wikipedia states that
Crieghton did
recognize that global warming is real, he was more looking at
eco-terriorism going wrong.
The
authors do not like the site: junkscience.com
The
authors state that a network of right-wing foundations funding
misrepresentations of science has become a tremendous problem. This
is because the public is being confused about what is science and
what is contrarian views. They count that journalists have not
helped. In trying to present a fair and balanced presentation they
have given a platform to opinions not science.
The
question which keeps coming to me is how do you handle dissent within
the science community. The authors indicate that once top level
committees accept something and/or it gets peer-reviewed that should
put the end to dissent. And yet, many of our human discoveries would
not have passed this bar-think Darwin, Galileo, Corpunicus, …
The
authors ask the question, Why
would any scientist participate in fraud?
The answer seems to be because it seems like science was working
against what was good for America. The authors do not answer if
science does work against this country.
The
chapter ends with a quote from Isaiah Berlin: liberty
for wolves is death to the lambs. But
the whole quote is disturbing to the author’s argument:
“Both
liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human
beings throughout many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is
death to the lambs, total liberty of the powerful, the gifted, is not
compatible with the rights to a decent existence of the weak and the
less gifted.”
― Isaiah
Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of
Ideas
Conclusion:
Of Free Speech and Free Markets
There
is misinformation being spread by “sides” which are well-funded
and driven to deny facts.
Consequently
most questions facing Americans tend to be reduced to what you say
but I say this. There is no agreement on facts.
There
needs to be an understanding that not all statements are created
equal.
The
crux of the story is who is distorting the science and why? The
authors say that what runs across the stories is the defense of the
free market. (While they do not state the free market is bad, there
is a sense that since it is driving these distortions, the free
market needs to be reigned in-my interpretation.) So in many ways,
when the authors introduce this, then the story is no longer just
dealing with science being the decision makers of directions humans
should go, but also economics as well.
They
point to a statement showing the reason why these cold-war scientists
fought against things like global warming. They considered them
socialists, denouncing things which are capitalist and by extension
things American and related to democracy. They consider regulation
an impedance to capitalism and all things American. George Soros
thinks that the capitalism envisioned by Singer and friends is a type
of religion. They datke free-market fundamentalism as an article of
faith. The authors use these statements to tone their arguments.
That does not do a whole bunch for me. It makes me wonder how weak
are their arguments?
The
authors point out that those who opposed regulation tried to curtail
the understanding of science. Thus they curtailed the flow of
information. There is a side note is that markets function the best
if there is a good flow of information. I do not think that the two
are related, but the authors put this in as a sense of irony.
The
authors state that Lomborg’s book has been criticized as a misuse
of statistics. But isn’t that what they said the detractors of the
various causes they talk about said in the arguments against
regulation? I do not see where criticizing one group because they
smear another’s statistics and then smearing the opposing group
gets us anyplace;.
There
are implications that John Templeton sides with people like Singer.
But the authors do not come right out and say so.
Motivations:
They say that scientists have a tendency to live for praise, but do
not want to be shouting their own praise. Also there is the belief
that truth will win out over the loudness of our current shouting.
Epilogue:
A New View of Science
The
authors envision a fine banquet which you are invited to. After all
is done, you are presented with a bill which you are now expected to
pay, with the bill growing as you do not pay it. The bill is in the
form of acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming.
The
theme of the book is that the protagonists do not present fact, but
work on manufacturing doubt.. The authors go on and seem to
discourage examining what they call accepted science. They feel that
science can be deepened, but not doubted. Research produces the
evidence for the facts.
Science
is supported by evidence and that evidence can be accepted or
rejected. The evidence can be objective, observed, experimental or
logical. The authors say that would the protagonists say has been
vetted and for the most part failed in the halls of evidence.
The
protagonists were prominent scientists in their fields. But for the
most part, they are not examining what is part of their fields.
What
the authors seem to discount is that science is not the only world we
live in. There are other things which need to factor in, such as
society concerns, economics, and religion.
Evaluation:
This
is a book which I thought to be well written and well researched. Its
points are ones which I want to agree with. So why do I feel so
apathetic to it? Some of it is the tone of the writing. The authors
seem to take a “them vs us” glee in knifing those who put forth
hypotheses which disagree with them. In one place, they read mockery
into the face of their opponent.
The
authors go through the roles of Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, Bill
Nierenber, Rober Jastrow and Kent Jeffreys in many of our current
scientific and regulatory discussions. They trace how these people,
and others, have cast doubt on our discussions about smoking, second
hand smoke, global warming, ozone depletion, and climate change.
There is some talk about the reasons for these people's doubts,
where the authors hint that they are based upon monetary gain as well
as certain bitterness towards the scientific establishments.
Along
the way, the authors do make certain dubious claims about what
scientific inquiry is and how theories grow to be accepted. They do
explain the concepts of peer reviews and the place for them. But they
seem to indicate that once passing them, there is general acceptance
of a theory. Also, you sort of wonder what peer review Newton, Darwin
and Einstein went through.
So
while it is a book to be read to understand much of our current
antipathy towards scientific findings, it is a book to be read
recognizing and accounting for the author's bias.
Notes from my book group:
What
were the authors trying to show in this book? Did they show it?
How
do you decide what is scientifically true? Is there different types
of truth based upon fields of study? Scientifically? Emotional?
Drama? Sensual? Religious?…
When
you read a news report about a new discovery or a contradictory
article, how do you determine what is truth?
What
difference will reading this book make in how you interpret
scientific news?
Did
your views on any of the subject change from reading this book?
Many
of these questions are either from or adapted from LitLovers.
- Why the title of Merchants of Doubt?
- Does this book work as an expose?
- Did the ending seem fitting? Satisfying? Predictable?
- Which person was the most convincing? Least?
- Which person did you identify with?
- Which one did you dislike?
- Every book has a world view. Were you able to identify this book’s world view? What was it? How did it affect the story?
- Why do you think the author wrote this book?
- What would you ask the author if you had a chance?
- What “take aways” did you have from this book?
- What central ideas does the author present?
- Are they personal, sociological, global, political, economic, spiritual, medical, or scientific
- What evidence does the author use to support the book's ideas?
- Is the evidence convincing...definitive or...speculative?
- Does the author depend on personal opinion, observation, and assessment? Or is the evidence factual—based on science, statistics, historical documents, or quotations from (credible) experts?
- What implications for you, our nation or the world do these ideas have?
- Are these idea’s controversial?
- To whom and why?
- Are there solutions which the author presents?
- Do they seem workable? Practicable?
- How would you implement them?
- Describe the culture talked about in the book.
- How is the culture described in this book different than where we live?
- What economic or political situations are described?
- Does the author examine economics and politics, family traditions, the arts, religious beliefs, language or food?
- How did this book affect your view of the world?
- What questions did you ask yourself after reading this book?
- Talk about specific passages that struck you as significant—or interesting, profound, amusing, illuminating, disturbing, sad...?
- What was memorable?
New Words:
- Troposphere (Introduction): the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth's surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles (6–10 km), which is the lower boundary of the stratosphere.
- Stratosphere (Introduction): the layer of the earth's atmosphere above the troposphere, extending to about 32 miles (50 km) above the earth's surface (the lower boundary of the mesosphere).
- Tumorigenicity (1): ability of cultured cells to give rise to either benign or malignant progressively growing tumours showing viable and mitotically active cells in immunologically nonresponsive animals over a limited observation period.
- Metabolite (7): a substance formed in or necessary for metabolism.
- Potemkin (Conclusion): a Potemkin village is any construction (literal or figurative) whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country which is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better, although statistics and charts would state otherwise. The term comes from stories of a fake portable village built solely to impress Empress Catherine II by her former lover Grigory Potemkin, during her journey to Crimea in 1787.
- Panglossian (Conclusion): marked by the view that all is for the best in this best of possible worlds : excessively optimistic.
- Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change
- Bad Science: A Resource Book by
- The Modern Theory of Solids by Frederick Seitz
- The Physics of Metals by Frederick Seitz
- The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich
- Betrayers of the Truth by William Broad and Nicholas Wade
- Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
- Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
- The Holes In The Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That The Sky Isn't Falling by Rogelio A. Maduro
- An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore
- Earth in the Balance by Al Gore
- Winds of Change by Eugene Linden
- The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson
- Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
- The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg
- State of Fear by Michael Crichton
- 1984 by George Orwell
- Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
- The Bridge at the End of the World by Gus Speth
- The Resourceful World by Julian Simon
- Global 2000 Report to the President
- State of Humanity by Julian Simon
- Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate by Fred Singer
- The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State by Bjorn Lomborg
- Understanding Scientific Reasons by Ronald Giere, John Bickle, Robert Mauldin
Good Quotes:
- First Line: Ben Santer is the type of guy you could never imagine anyone attacking.
- Last Line: We agree.
- The trouble with America is that they haven’t read the minutes of the previous meeting. Alai Stevenson, unattributed
- Environmental quality is not a luxury; it is an absolute necessity of life. S. Fred Singer, Is There An Optimal Level, pg 157
- ...small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially, if they are organized, determined and have access to power. Chp 6 The Denial of Global Warming
- Introduction p. 1
- 1 Doubt Is Our Product p. 10
- 2 Strategic Defense, Phony Facts, and the Creation of the George C. Marshall Institute p. 36
- 3 Sowing the Seeds of Doubt: Acid Rain p. 66
- 4 Constructing a Counternarrative: The Fight over the Ozone Hole p. 107
- 5 What's Bad Science? Who Decides? The Fight over Secondhand Smoke p. 136
- 6 The Denial of Global Warming p. 169
- 7 Denial Rides Again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson p. 216
- Conclusion: Of Free Speech and Free Markets p. 240
- Epilogue: A New View of Science
References:
- Author's Web Site
- Wikipedia-Book
- Wikipedia-Author
- Amazon-Book
- Amazon-Author
- GoodReads-Book
- GoodReads-Author
- Movie Trailer on YouTube
- Environmental Defense Fund on the movie
- Grist review
- Think Progress review
No comments:
Post a Comment