, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 531–559 | Cite as

Perspectives on global warming

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway: Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010, 368pp, $ 27.00 HB
  • Steven YearleyEmail author
  • David Mercer
  • Andy Pitman
  • Naomi Oreskes
  • Erik Conway
Book Symposium

Steven Yearley

This is a terrifically researched and very well presented book. It is a major achievement to produce a trade book based on the social and historical analysis of science that tells a wonderful, though alarming, story with wit and irony. The heart of this story is the way that industry interests, friendly scientists and conservative activists—mainly in the US—have over the last half century developed a strategy for generating the appearance of doubt relating to the scientific claims underwriting a series of environmental and public health reforms. The dramatic but wryly entertaining aspect of this story is that in the differing fields of smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion, nuclear winter and climate change, the same scientists and advisers manage to crop up, always trying to talk the regulations down. They devise and refine a strategy of focusing on generating the appearance of doubt, insisting on media outlets featuring ‘balanced’ coverage of the two ‘sides’, and of...


  1. Abrevaya, J., and D.S. Hamermesh. 2010. Charity and favoritism in the field: are female economists nicer (to each other)? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 15972.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, L.V., and J.M. Arblaster. 2009. Assessing trends in observed and modelled climate extremes over Australia in relation to future projections. International Journal of Climatology 29: 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashmore, M. 1996. Ending up on the wrong side: Must the two forms of radicalism always be at war? Social Studies of Science 26: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balanyá, J., J.M. Oller, R.B. Huey, G.W. Gilchrist, and L. Serra. 2006. Global genetic change tracks global climate warming in Drosophila subobscura. Science 313: 1773–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamber, J.L., R.E.M. Riva, B.L.A. Vermeersen, and A.M. LeBrocq. 2009. Reassessment of the potential sea-level rise from a collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet. Science 324: 901–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H.-D. Daniel. 2007. Gender difference in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics 1: 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadell, J.G. et al. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 18,866–18,870.Google Scholar
  9. Cartwright, N. 2007. Are RCTs the gold standard? Biosocieties 2: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CCSP. 2008. Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate. Regions of focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A report by the U. S. climate change science program. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Church, J.A., and N.J. White. 2006. A 20th-century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L01602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole, S., J.R. Cole, and G.A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daston, L., and P. Galison. 2010. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  15. Dessler, A.E., et al. 2008. Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008. Geophysical Research Letters 35: L20704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterling, D.R., and M.F. Wehner. 2009. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters 36: L08706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 2004. Daubert and the exclusionary ethos: The convergence of corporate and judicial attitudes towards the admissibility of expert evidence in tort litigation. Law and Policy 26: 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism and the politics of knowledge. California: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ezrahi, Y. 2004. Science and political imagination in contemporary democracies. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, ed. S. Jasanoff, 254–273. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, M., S.B. Friedman, and B. Strauss. 1994. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flanagin, A., et al. 1998. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster, K.R., and P.W. Huber. 1997. Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furedi, F. 2009. Energizing the debate about climate change. Spiked, 20 March.Google Scholar
  25. Gillett, N.P., and P.A. Stott. 2009. Attribution of anthropogenic influence on seasonal sea level pressure. Geophysical Research Letters 36: L23709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glassner, B. 1999. The culture of fear: Why Americans fear the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Healy, D. 2000. Good science or good business? Hastings Center Report 30: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Healy, D. 2004. Let them eat Prozac. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hisschemöller, M., T. Hoppe, P. Groenewegen, and C.J.H. Midden. 2001. Knowledge use and political choice in Dutch environmental policy: A problem structuring perspective on real life experiments in extended peer review. In Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy, eds. Hisschememöller, M., R. Hoope, W.N. Dunn, and J.R. Ravetz, vol 12, 437–452. Policy Studies Review Annual.Google Scholar
  30. Hobsbawm, E. 1994. Age of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914–1991. New York: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
  31. Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. eds. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: science advisors as policy makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jasanoff, S. 2003. Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, the third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science 33: 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, S. 2010. Beyond calculation: A democratic response to risk. In Disaster and the politics of intervention, ed. A. Lakoff, 14–40. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keeling, C.D. 1998. Rewards and penalties of monitoring the earth. Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment 23: 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kriegler, E., J. W. Hall, H. Held, R. Dawson, and H.-J. Schellnhuber. 2009. Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 5,041–5,046.Google Scholar
  39. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the public interest. Lantham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  40. Lamont, M. 2010. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific fact. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lentsch, J., and P. Weingart (eds.). 2011. The politics of science advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mercer, D. 2008. Science legitimacy and folk epistemology in medicine and law: Parallels between legal reforms to the admissibility of expert evidence and evidence based medicine. Social Epistemology 22: 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mooney, C. 2005. The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, K. 2008. Disrupting science: Social movements, American scientists and the politics of the military, 1945–1975. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newell, B.R., and A.J. Pitman. 2010. The psychology of global warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91: 1003–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Novotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  50. Oreskes, N. 1999. The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Oreskes, N. 2002. Gravity surveys in the ‘permanent’ ocean basins: An instrumental chink in a theoretical suit of armor. In Oceanographic history: The Pacific and beyond, ed. K.R. Benson, and P.F. Rehbock, 502–510. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  52. Oreskes, N. 2004. Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science and Policy 7: 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oreskes, N. 2008. The devil is in the (historical) details: Continental drift as a case of normatively appropriate consensus? Perspectives on Science 16: 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pereira, Â.G., and S. Funtowicz. 2005. Quality assurance by extended peer review: tools to inform debates, dialogues and deliberations. Technikfolgenabschätzung Theorie und Praxis 2: 74–79.Google Scholar
  55. Peters, D., and S. Ceci. 1983. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavior and Brain Science 5: 187–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plimer, I. 2009. Heaven + Earth. Global warming: The missing science. Balan, Victoria: Connor Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Porter, T. 1996. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pritchard, H.D. and D.G. Vaughan. 2007. Widespread acceleration of tidewater glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: F03S29.Google Scholar
  59. Rampton, S., and J. Stauber. 2002. Trust us, we’re experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  60. Ravetz, J.R. 2006. The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford: New Internationalist Books.Google Scholar
  61. Rennie, D. 1986. Guarding the guardians: A conference on editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 256: 2,391–2,392.Google Scholar
  62. Rennie, D. 1999. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In Peer review in health sciences, ed. F. Godlee, and T. Jefferson. London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
  63. Roqueplo, P. 1994. Climats sous surveillance: Limites et conditions de l’expertise scientifique. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  64. Rudwick, Martin.J.S. 1988. The great Devonian controversy: The shaping of scientific knowledge among gentlemanly specialists. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Shapin, S. 1995. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99: 178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Solomon, M. 2001. Social empiricism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Talent, J. 1989. The case of peripatetic fossils. Nature 338: 613–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van der Sluijs, J.P., R. van Est, and M. Riphagen. 2010. Beyond consensus: Reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van, G.F., S. Evans, R. Smith, and N. Black. 1998. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallerstein, I. 2000. The essential Wallerstein. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  72. Washington, H.W., and J. Cook. 2011. Climate change denial: Heads in the sand. London: Earthscan Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wenneras, C., and A. Wold. 1997. Sexism and nepotism in peer review. Nature 387: 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Willett, K.M., N.P. Gillett, P.D. Jones, and P.W. Thorne. 2007. Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence. Nature 449: 710–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans. Social Studies of Science 33: 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wynne, B. 2010. When doubt becomes a weapon. Nature 466: 441–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yearley, S. 1997. The changing social authority of science. Science Studies 10: 65–75.Google Scholar
  78. Zammito, J.H. 2004. A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Zhang, X., F.W. Zwiers, G.C. Hegerl, F.H. Lambert, N.P. Gillett, S. Solomon, P.A. Stott, and T. Nozawa. 2007. Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends. Nature 448: 461–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Yearley
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Mercer
    • 2
  • Andy Pitman
    • 3
  • Naomi Oreskes
    • 4
  • Erik Conway
    • 5
  1. 1.ESRC Genomics Policy and Research ForumUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Science and Technology Studies ProgramUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of HistoryUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA
  5. 5.CaltechPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations