jacob graham’s Reviews > Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming > Status Update
jacob graham
is on page 8 of 274
"Seitz, Singer, [William] Nierenberg, and [Robert] Jastrow had all served in high levels of science administration, where they had come to know admirals and generals, congressmen and senators, even presidents. They had also dealt extensively with the media, so they knew how to get press coverage for their views, and how to pressure the media when they didn't . . .
— Sep 06, 2026 01:04PM
1 like · Like flag
jacob’s Previous Updates
jacob graham
is on page 7 of 274
"A handful of men would have had no impact if no one had paid any attention, but people did pay attention. By virtue of their earlier work in the Cold War weapons programs, these men were well-known and highly respected in Washington, D.C., and had access to power all the way to the White House.
It wasn't just the Bush administration that took these claims seriously; the mass media did, too . . ."
— Sep 06, 2026 01:00PM
It wasn't just the Bush administration that took these claims seriously; the mass media did, too . . ."
jacob graham
is on page 6 of 274
"In case after case, Fred Singer and Fred Seitz, and a handful of other scientists joined forces with think tanks and private corporations to challenge scientific evidence on a host of contemporary issues . . . They claimed the link between smoking and cancer remained unproven . . . that acid rain was caused by volcanoes, and so was the ozone hole . . ."
— Sep 06, 2026 12:57PM
Over the course of more than twenty years, these men did almost no original scientific research on any of the issues on which they weighed in . . . they were mostly attacking the work and reputations of others. In fact, on every issue, they were on the wrong side of the scientific consensus . . . Yet, for years the press quoted these men as experts, and politicians listened to them, using their claims as justification for inaction.
Why would scientists . . . deliberately misrepresent the work of their own colleagues? Why would they spread accusations with no basis? Why would they refuse to correct their arguments once they had been shown to be incorrect? And why did the press continue to quote them, year after year, even as their claims were shown, one after another, to be false? This is the story we are about to tell. It is a story about a group of scientists who fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time. It is a story about a pattern that continues today. A story about fighting facts, and merchandising doubt."