One of the key rules of public relations is not to do something that will draw more attention to the meme you’re trying to downplay.
In the case of Merchants of Doubt, the new movie has exposed a large new audience to the ugly historical fact that key members of the climate denial community were also active in the “second hand smoke is fine for you, your aged mother with lung disease, and your baby,too” community, back in the 90s. In the meantime, most of society has decided that second hand smoke is not only a health risk, but its about as welcome as a rancid fart.
Now some of those players are having second thoughts about the interviews they gave to filmmaker Robby Kenner. Aged but still militantly wrong Fred Singer claims the film calls him a “liar for hire” – which it doesn’t, but apparently some reviewers made that leap. Pity, that.
Most hilariously, if you go to Scientific American and read the whole link, Batshit Crazy fake Lord “I’ve cured AIDS” Monckton has offered to assist in Dr. Singer’s legal complaint.
So have at it, guys. Let’s open this discussion up. I’m all ears on that crazy, alarmist, second hand smoke thing.
Before the release this Friday of the documentary “Merchants of Doubt,” S. Fred Singer sought the advice of nearly 30 climate skeptics about their chances of halting the movie and whether he should sue Naomi Oreskes, who co-authored the book on which it’s based.
“Has she finally gone too far?” asked Singer.
The discussion is outlined in a chain of emails initiated last fall by the 90-year-old physicist, who is featured in the film for his work questioning the amount of influence people have on rising temperatures. His request reached a mix of academics and others who have been mostly antagonistic toward mainstream climate findings. ClimateWire obtained the emails from a source who received them as a forwarded message.
Perhaps the strongest response came from James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who has challenged the science around the health risks of secondhand smoke and particulate air pollution. Enstrom told Singer that he could make “a very strong case” against Oreskes if Singer filed complaints with the universities she’s affiliated with.
“I suggest you Attack Oreskes by Filing short Grievances with Harvard and Stanford,” Enstrom wrote to Singer on Oct. 21. Oreskes is a professor of scientific history at Harvard University with a doctorate from Stanford University.
“Good thought,” Singer responded.
The wider discussion is viewed by some as a window into the network of skeptical scientists, bloggers and conservative think tank scholars who often raise objections to mainstream climate science. The tactics discussed — like lawsuits and grievances — reflect previous efforts to constrain critics of Singer and others through legal attacks, or the threat of them, several people involved with the movie say.
“This is part of their intimidation,” Oreskes said in an interview. “It’s a part about trying to make people frightened that if they do speak up and they do expose what’s going on, they’ll get attacked. And they will get attacked. I’ve been attacked.”
The documentary is based on her book, “Merchants of Doubt,” published in 2010. In it, she outlined the similarities between the political fight around climate change and the earlier debates about whether smoking was dangerous. The effort to fight health problems from smoking was stalled for years. She suggested that a small group of scientists cooperating with think tanks and businesses managed to obscure basic truths about the harms of both. The movie will be released nationally Friday. It’s directed by Robert “Robby” Kenner, the creator of the 2008 documentary “Food Inc.”
Oh, Dr. Singer, Please, Please don’t throw me in that briar patch….
I would love to see Singer on a witness stand. Even a second-year law student in the lower half of his class could expose him for the doddering old fool and lying POS that he it. Sample train of “questioning”.
2nd. year law student: “Dr. Singer, is SHS bad for you?”
Fred: “How should I know, I’m a physicist, not a doctor”
2nd. year law student: “Then why did you take so much money from the tobacco industry for so many years to say it wasn’t bad for you”?
Fred: “Willie Soon said it was OK to sow doubt and get paid for it, and, if we did a good job, that the fossil fuel industry would hire us and pay us a lot too. Willie and I work together at the Heartland Institute, and….” (abruptly stops speaking)
(Cut to Singer’s lawyer, who was making frantic “cut” motions across his throat and is now looking at the ceiling)
Yes, bring it on, deniers.
PS I just had a great “flash”. Guess who will perhaps be called as an EXPERT WITNESS for the M of D! Our very own Russell Cook!!!!! The first 30 seconds of his “speech” at Heartland (July 2014) will be enough to finish him.
They will have the 2nd. year law student’s 12-year-old little sister play it for the jury and ask Russell “Is that you speaking”?, and when Russell answers “Yes” , the little sister will say “No more questions” and Russell will be sent home by the judge. The jury will try not to laugh.
Thanks for thinking of me, “d.o.g.” But you just telegraphed to the entire world just how weak your enslavement to the fossil fuel industry / tobacco parallel accusation is. By all means, bring on the exact ‘second-year lower-half-of-class law student’ you speak of if you have that much confidence in your prosecution material. Nice guy that I am, I can forewarn you that those exact questions you have would be blown completely out of the water by the cross examination.
It becomes ever more abundantly obvious why you have a compulsion to resort to false premise talking point questions, or have me saying “…. and on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates….”, or claim the first 30 seconds of my ICCC9 presentation wipes out my credibility: It is because you cannot refute any of the specific points I made in my presentation; it is because you cannot refute anything I say on Oreskes’ contradictions/enslavement regarding the ‘evidence’ she worships as smoking gun material; and it is because you cannot actually refute the talking points you are enslaved to yourself.
For example, indulge us: link to and reproduce verbatim text where Dr Singer ever said 2nd hand smoke was NOT bad for us. Go ahead, give it a shot. Betcha can’t deliver. Not to worry, given your track record up to now, nobody on your side will expect you to be called as an expert witness who can provide evidence proving skeptics are paid / instructed to lie. So, no worries for you on being sent home or being turned into a laughingstock, correct?
Babble on, Russell. Are you LD? Do you have trouble reading the English language? You are never doing to meet the second-year law student because her little sister is going to establish that you are NOT an expert witness, and you will be sent packing. You will be destroyed by YOUR OWN WORDS—-that first 30 seconds of the Heartland clip.
And when will you ever understand that I was joking and mocking you when I said “…. and on page 269 of Merchants of Doubt, there is a spelling error that invalidates…” The page # was PFTA, and you’re too freaking dumb to understand the intended humor. It’s the same kind of “make something out of nothing evidence” that you do with your bookmarks and page flipping.
And how many times do we have to repeat the truth that “the first 30 seconds of the Heartland clip wipes out your credibility” FOR ALL TIME. You are a self-admitted, bottom-of-the-barrel, walked-in-off-the-street science illiterate know-nothing that is simply a whore for Heartland and the fossil fuel interests. You keep coming back to Crock and spouting the same tired BS because you are PAID to do so, and that’s why we pay no attention to your “arguments” and instead mock you.
It’s all about YOU here, Russell, not me, and your pathetic attempts to deflect are obvious to all. What puzzles me is why you keep coming back to Crock and embarrassing yourself. Oh, I forgot—-you’re a whore and this is the street corner your pimp at Heartland has assigned you. Sorry.
It’s always the same names doing the rounds. Even Google News doesn’t present evidence all this stuff is reaching outside the usual choirs (movie out at Telluride some months ago)
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22merchants+of+doubt%22&tbm=nws&start=10
It’d also be interesting to see how many climate skeptics have made use of Fred Singer’s statements over the years. I mentioned him a few times myself, eg in 2009, when I wondered how a 84-year-old had managed to single-handedly stop climate change action. He’s going to be 91 next September. The old joke about Jews reading Nazi newspapers springs to mind.
(reddit dot com) r/Jokes/comments/2cg23f/a_jew_in_nazi_germany_reads_a_nazi_newspaper/
And yes, he had a 1970 article on Science with a novel theory about the specifics of Venus.
Leave it to the Omnomoron to talk about “joke”, “Jews”, and “Nazis” in the same sentence. Lord love a chubby little goose-stepping Fascist duck!!
It’s a well known Jewish joke. Fascist is who fascist does, like the resident bully who can’t be bothered to look up a link.
Actually, I did look up the link (as I do all of yours, mostly to see how badly you’ve misinterpreted what they say), and even read the comments, one of which was from a Jew who thought the joke was funny. I lived in neighborhoods with, went to college with, and worked with a fair number of Jews in northern NJ, and some of their ironic-sardonic-sarcastic wit rubbed off on me. I too found the “joke” worth a sardonic smile. (And you think I’M a bully? They would have eaten you alive).
Are you Jewish, Omno? If not, may I suggest that you keep your little Mussolini thoughts about what’s funny to yourself. If you ARE Jewish, I congratulate you on having that Jewish sense of humor that has helped them to endure in the face of adversity.
Inform yourself better, you supreme ignoramus. The Der Stuermer joke is well known and totally Jewish in origin.
Omno misses the point—–AGAIN!
Nope. Just as Jews are sarcastically happy -in the joke- to be depicted as an all powerful all rich people who control the world, likewise it gives some comfort to think a 90 year old climate skeptic has been able to prevent hundreds of governments to reach a deal for decades. But you wouldn’t know sarcasm if it bit your flesh.
Batshit Crazy fake Lord “I’ve cured AIDS” Monckton… couldn’t have said it better! 🙂
If they try to sue the filmmaker – I’d be happy to pitch in on a collective lawsuit against all the quacks like Monckton, Singer, Soon, and a whole slew of republican politicians. I think its about time these idiots were put in place for their willingness to make life miserable for the people on the planet, knowingly and willingly in the face of all the scientific evidence.
His Ludship regularly threatens to sue scientists, and their universities, for correcting his mistakes in public. He has never actually done so. Barry Bickmore’s blog has done a good job of cataloging all of Monckton’s threats to sue.
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/the-monckton-files-threatwatch-1/
All bark, no bite.
Climatecrocks, the case for damage from second-hand smoke is weak. While it is true not many people want to hang out amidst clouds of unattractive smoke, it cannot be categorically stated ETS exposure is a risk for lung cancer. In other words, it can be argued, without being a ‘liar’, that there is regulatory over-zeal w.r.t second-hand smoke. This is what Singer did, and not too many times, if I remember correctly. I haven’t seen the film but I looks to be made by a foolish person. It is likely he fell for simplistic conclusions about second-hand smoke and landed in libel territory.
I’ll let you take the lead defending tobacco a addict’s right to blow smoke in my baby’s face.
By all means, run with that one, my friend.
What is your basis for concluding second-hand smoke exposure is an effective lung carcinogen? Since you seem to have accepted it, you must have a basis for it.
Babies, addiction, lung disease and aged mothers is rhetoric. Let us set it aside and get straight to the point.
“Babies, addiction, lung disease and aged mothers is rhetoric.”
Well here is a book that is all rhetoric if we take your mantra: Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition
Introduction on some issues and history here: BTV: Book TV at Stanford University: Robert Proctor, “Golden Holocaust”
but it is a book you should read and learn from for you are clearly in great need of education.
I find the scientific discussions on SHS an unnecessary distraction. The main point is that we should not be forced to breathe any tobacco residual if we do not want to.
It’s as if people drank beer and sprinkled it to all the bystanders. No, thanks.
More confused babbling from the Omnomoron. I am tempted to just ask “WHAT?”, but Omno is obviously running his mouth here to get some attention rather than say anything cogent, so I will oblige him.
“I find the scientific discussions on SHS an unnecessary distraction”, says Omno.
An unnecessary distraction from WHAT, Omno? This post is about Merchants of Doubt, the first M of D were the tobacco deniers, and there is a clear chain extending down to present day climate change deniers. It’s called “history” and “linked events” and it begins with tobacco (and SHS).
“The main point is that we should not be forced to breathe any tobacco residual if we do not want to”, says Omno.
The main point is that the Merchants of Doubt exist, and that they have done a great disservice to humanity on many fronts, not just with SHS.
Finally, in his quest for meaningful analogies, Omno comes up with one of the most inept and inane ever—–“It’s as if people drank beer and sprinkled it to all the bystanders. No, thanks”.
“…as if people sprinkled beer on bystanders…” ?????????????????????? Lord love a duck, but that’s as mindless as anything Omno has ever posted on Crock.
There’s no discussion to which you can contribute anything meaningful. You just repeat this sad lonely act of feigning indignation against people you try to rrmotepsychanalize, as part of your daily Internet bullying efforts. I can’t think I could’ve been clearer…SHS should be outlawed for reasons of civility and individual freedom. This argument is impossible to attack by manipulating science or by sowing doubts on the effects of SHS. I wish people would have more courage to put forward their convictions for what they are instead of trying always to recruit science to their cause.
?????…..ZZZZzzzz…….!
“Batshit Crazy fake Lord “I’ve cured AIDS” Monckton”
I believe he IS a bona fide Lord.
He is NOT a Member of the House of Lords in any capacity or association, despite his claims.
Accuracy, ACCURACY! Peter. ;D
A small point, but it is true that he is a lord—-he inherited the title after the reforms in the late 90’s that stated that just inheriting a title wasn’t enough to claim membership—-after that, anyone “new” who wanted to be a member of the House of Lords had to stand for election, and he has lost a number of times—-they have sent him a “cease and desist” letter telling him to stop claiming that he is a member.
Considering that Monckton is a walking steaming odorous pile of Batshit Crazy “INaccuracy” and is about as FAKE a hujman being as ever walked, I can’t be as hard on Peter as you are.
he has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords often enough that Parliament issued a request that he desist.
He is a fake Lord. That he is an unfortunate victim of British upper class inbreeding is not in doubt.
Monckton about as royal as the con men the King and the Duke in Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Not the only thing he has in common with a couple of carpetbaggers . . .
“Enstrom told Singer that he could make “a very strong case” against Oreskes if Singer filed complaints with the universities she’s affiliated with.”
That’s the strategy of a scoundrel.
I believe Monckton made similar threats when John Abraham made that rather mild-mannered dissection of hizzoner’s claims, threatening to call the Dean of Abraham’s university to have him turfed.
And then compared Abraham to a boiled prawn.
I’ll let you search for a side-by-side of Abraham, Monckton & prawn.
You’re welcome 🙂
Hmm, looks like Peter already posted on this 4 yrs ago. His thoroughness is most annoying.
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/01/the-skeptics-monckton-tries-to-block-bbc-broadcast-of-investigative-film/
Prawn pic included.
Since 1999 membership of the House of Lords has been decoupled from the right to be addressed as a Lordship. Maybe they should call it a Senate.
Shub Niggurath? Another narcissist rears his oh-so-pretty head (just ask him how pretty and smart he is). We have rid ourselves of Engineer-Poet, is ShubbyN his replacement? A “handle” just about as pretentious as E-Pot, and even gives “Omnologos” some competition.
(Do any of these self-anointed geniuses ever just call themselves “George”?)