Talk:Merchants of Doubt

Review by Reiner Grundmann at BioSocieties

A new review by Reiner Grundmann, Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Nottingham, UK. Grundmann sees the book as "less a scholarly work than a passionate attack on a group of scientists turned lobbyists and thus itself a partial account. I wonder if it does not do a disservice to the cause it is advocating.

Worthy of a section in the article, imo, to add balance to it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the reception chapter, it seems far to long a list for me. Some of the entries shoould be used in the main text, some are tending to overselling. Grundmann http://nottingham.ac.uk/Sociology/People/reiner.grundmann is socciologist and dealing with transnational environmental issues. His contribution in so far is more than a newspaper review useable to "add balance" but a sound social science evaluation wjhch describes en detail the content and main topics of the book from an experts view. In so far I would like to not to use it as "just another review" but as a base to describe the books content and main concluions as well. Serten (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I came here form your comment at scientific opinion on climate change and see you are edit warring here as well to get your ozone and Grundmann put in prominently. As far as I can see you have made undue NPOV change. The main stuff about Grundmann should be in the reception section and most of the other changes are pushing stuff that wasn't in the book. Also I really must ask you again to look at your edits before submitting them and check the underlined words as your spelling is atrocious and even if your edits were acceptable otherwise that is a burden for other editors. Your prose also is turgid bordering on the unintelligible, please try harder to use English, even a Google translate would be better sometimes. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a definite no no on Wikipedia to introduce text and citations that aren't directly related to the topic. I know this can be hard sometimes but the WP:OR policy is very clear: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You linked stuff that was not linked, that is OR. Dmcq (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Seitz and Singer

What message is behind that section? I have the impression that it is parroting sme of the believes stated in the book and repeats the more or less grunting response odf one of the counterparts in question. I assume that the article would be better without it. Serten (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What section? And could you leave out the insults please. Dmcq (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Merchants of Despair, not an attempt at counterargument?

• In 2011, aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin, most famous for penning The Case for Mars, published a book length response a year after Merchants of Doubt, titled Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, the book traces the history of antihumanism over the last two centuries, from Thomas Malthus and the eugenics movement through to the anti-nuclear and "alarmist" DDT and global warming campaigns. Zubrin argues that these movements, by means of pseudo-science, have caused deaths and by a number of methods, including that of statistical mis-treatments, have all attempted to gain oppressive political control through the restriction of human activities and freedom.

In the edit history, User:Adrian J. Hunter has blanked all mention to this book. Giving the following rationale : doesn't seem to be a direct counter to this book, as far as I can tell... MoDoubt is specifically about manipulating the public perception of global warming, whereas MoDespair seems much broader in scope.

If you were familar with both books, or if you tried to get educated on them before working on nothing but your seems to inform your editing. You'd know that you are pushing a falsehood.

Merchants of Doubt, is not specifically about global warming as you claim, it in reality, actually mentions essentially every major environmental and public health debate, including a section on DDT/Rachel Carson.

As you clearly haven't read either book, perhaps this review of MoDoubt, will begin to illuminate the true "scope" of the book for you? As an appraisal of Carson's achievements, this is a fairly shocking piece of revisionism and, as the authors of Merchants of Doubt make clear,.

Merchants of despair by Zubrin, is a literally response, it is an attempt at counterargument. Both books are titled Merchants of...', one was published less than 12 months after the other and both books have the same subject matter, namely, global warming, DDT, environmentalism, scientific uncertainty and those that use that uncertainty to push a particular narrative.

So please don't work on you gut instinct again and "seem" to know what you're talking about.

In future, is it too much to ask for editors to read up on the subject matter, before blanking sections on nothing but feelings of their "seem"?

The book is a counterargument, any attempt to suggest that it is not, as User:Adrian J. Hunter has, is either ill-informed or tranparently facetious.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:Lunatic charlatans. Why should we consider a response by an engineer, who is neither an expert on climate nor on social science? Has there been any reception from reliable sources that says MoDespair is a serious work? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you start with a personal opinion, not grounded in facts, that then informs your "lunatic" viewpoint...yet end with acknowledging you haven't a clue and ask 'if there are reliable references that say "it's a serious work"? Can't you see how utterly backward that is? When all you needed to do is look the book up to yourself. To answer your own question?

Wonders never cease. Gere are reviews by Forbes and the Washington Times. Although judging by your aforementioned prejudiced antipathy, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with these? Here's a quote from Forbes. "Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair” chronicles huge and devastating influences of radical environmentalists"...the "profound ideological influences that resulted in large and long population “cleansing” campaigns through mass sterilization, abortion, and racial/ethnic genocide."

You and I may not agree with Zubrin on everything, nor on Oerskes for that matter, but that doesn't change the fact that this book was written as a form of response and that it received a wide readership, a readership you are seemingly intent on being ignorant of?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/07/31/racism-and-genocide-cloaked-in-green-camouflage/#71650ade17aa

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/28/book-reviewmerchants-of-despair/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/11605-a-review-of-zubrins-merchants-of-despair

There are also a number of reviews and criticisms here on this site I've similarly never heard of before, alongside those tens-upon-tens on amazon. https://mboten.com/review/12435498-merchants-of-despair-radical-environmentalists-criminal-pseudo-scientists-and-the-fatal-cult-of-antihumanism

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/review-merchants-of-despair/

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what the relevance of this book is. As far as I can see it doesn't mention Merchants of Doubt or Oreskes. It doesn't seem to have any science or research based reasoning in it at all that I can see, it just depends on gut feeling and reductio ad Hitlerum arguments. In short it is rather distant as far as can see. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

...Dmcq...did you actually read the book? Or even read some reviews of the book? As you simultaneously critique the concept of "gut-feeling" thinking and yet without so much as a bit of cognitive dissonance, claim "it doesn't seem to have any research based reasoning". Do you perhaps see the wonderous hypocrisy in that? When you haven't bothered to check out your view? There is actually a website that attempts to critique the very research Zubrin did on the web, focusing on the scientific references and facts he uses in "the research based reasoning" you bizarrely claim it does not contain. In any event, the consensus may be that both Zubrin & Oreskes both oversteps reality to continue the narrative each has chosen to drive home, finding ever more tenuous examples, but that does not mean the books aren't based on scientific facts, they are and they're both notable. They were both widely read.

The book is replete with scientific studies and facts... --Publishers Weekly

Though this is no measure of readership, right now on amazon, 98 readers had the time to write a review, while for Mo doubt 346 had the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Despair-Environmentalists-Pseudo-Scientists-Antihumanism/dp/159403737X

User:Nomoskedasticity, can you specify exactly which references weren't functioning for you, they are all here in html format for you to check.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Before my edit, I searched for evidence MoDespair really was a response to MoDoubt and found none. If it really is, it's hard to believe this would have escaped the notice of reviewers in Forbes, Washington Times, and New American. I can't find any source about MoDespair that even mentions MoDoubt or Oreskes. Does MoDespair itself mention them? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Zubrin talks about MoDespair for 24 minutes here and never mentions MoDoubt or Oreskes. There's also a longer talk here that I haven't watched. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)