Manipulators of Science

The process of science is one of questioning, testing, interpreting results, challenging findings, retesting, reviewing evidence and asking new questions. Are the activities of scientists who are said to be merchants of doubt about climate change different from what constitutes good scientific practice?

 In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway expose the fact that ‘scientists’ such as Fred Singer and Fred Seitz are not really scientists at all.  Yes, they challenge findings and constantly refuse to accept studies because they say they need to be retested, but their motives are not to further scientific knowledge for the betterment of people.  Their sole objective is to make money by ensuring that the industries in which they invest and the organizations which fund their ‘research’ are not rejected by society as a result of science proving that these institutions are destructive to humans and the environment.  These merchants of doubt are fully aware that smoking causes cancer, aerosol cans were a major contributing factor to the Ozone hole, and that climate change is occurring.  To them, preserving industries is much more important than protecting people’s health and making money trumps the survival of nature as we know it.  Thus, they use their knowledge and connections to create and spread counterarguments to every topic strong enough to delay people from taking action. 

For over a century, climate change has been studied and discussed by scientists.  Countless theories have been created, rejected, revised, and completely redone.  At this point, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers that confirm that climate change is occurring.  The claim by the merchants of doubt that “more research is needed” to know if climate change is happening at all is appalling. There is much that the scientific community does not understand about climate, but the fact that change is occurring is just that, a fact. 

These ‘scientists’ are constantly pushing science backwards.  They refute every topic despite their expertise because in some way it affects their pockets.  They use their power and their label as scientists to convince the media that their point of view needs to be strongly presented.  As a result, the ignorant sector of the public begins to question the validity of thousands of other scientists’ claims.  It is much easier to think that climate change is not occurring, so society does not have to change than to accept the challenge of changing one’s lifestyle to live more sustainably.  Manipulation of the media, the public, and science itself is the polar opposite of good scientific practice.  In fact, the entire careers of these merchants of doubt did not contribute to scientific practice, they corrupted it.