Naomi Oreskes

I absolutely loathe doom-mongering. That's not (entirely) the result of rational analysis, but rather an emotional aversion to people who only see the negative and unnecessarily exaggerate it, as if there isn't enough misery in the world already. And while I'm at it: I also have no interest in futurism, in people who think they can predict the future with near-infallible certainty. What arrogance.
Nevertheless, this dystopian novelette was written by respected historians of science, show more affiliated with Harvard and Purdue University, in the US. They paint a picture of the apocalyptic world of 2393, almost unrecognizably changed by global warming and its catastrophic consequences. Through a Chinese historian they describe how things got this far, and they do so partly with scientific arguments, certainly, but also with a fair amount of guesswork presented as fact (such as the second Black Death epidemic that decimated the world population). They rightly denounce that the world at the beginning of the 21st century was unwilling to fully acknowledge the impact of the climate crisis. But then the moralistic finger is pointed: that unwillingness is due to the reductionist positivism of the scientific community, to the deliberate obstruction by interest groups and politicians (a new conspiracy theory is being marketed with the "carbon-combustion complex"), and to market fundamentalism—ultimately, to the capitalist system. It is therefore telling that they praise China's centralist and dirigiste approach.
Clearly, this is intended as a warning, and the authors certainly deserve credit for that, because global warming is, also in my view, the greatest challenge of our time. However, the way they do it demonstrates profound arrogance and, above all, a lack of insight into the human psyche. By unleashing doom-mongering and ideologically biased analyses on people, they achieve the opposite effect. The policies of the gang currently in power in Washington prove this abundantly. No, perhaps I’m to harsh, but I don't know who this will interest, except those who are convinced. show less

In the mid-1990s the tobacco industry was frequently sued by state governments, the US federal government, and class actions, because a tipping point had finally been reached and most everyone was in agreement that tobacco smoke causes cancer. These lawsuits brought to the public eye tens of thousands of documents - studies, articles, dossiers, emails, paychecks - implicating the tobacco lobby in a massive capitalist conspiracy to hide the health dangers of tobacco from users, shareholders, show more governments, and the public. Science historians Oreskes and Conway combed through these documents to look for trends and connections. They were contacted by a climate scientist, Ben Santer, who believed there was a connection between the tobacco lobby documents and the discrediting of his own work on global warming. Oreskes and Conway uncovered not only the same strategy, but the same four people - Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, William Nierenberg, and Robert Jastrow - retired physicists who devoted the rest of their lives to the discrediting of scientific research regarding smoking, the Strategic Defense Initiative, acid rain, the ozone hole, secondhand smoke, global warming, and the slander of Rachel Carson in the mid ‘00s. Their method was to use the skepticism ingrained in scientists and the scientific method to sow doubt. They funded and promoted research showing other causes of lung cancer to muddy the water, spread unfounded rumors about the advanced weapons capability of the Soviet Union, blamed volcanoes for acid rain and faulty satellites for the ozone hole. They invented the concept of “junk science” to cherry-pick only studies that supported their beliefs (or more accurately, the beliefs of the signers of their paychecks) and weaponized the already-abolished-but-habitual “fairness doctrine” to demand their lobbying be given the same amount of press as actual science. They used their power as Presidential advisors to get quotes and op-eds in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, while real scientists kept their heads down lest their work be specifically attacked and discredited by this well-funded unstoppable machine.

It’s very depressing how little anything has changed since the ‘70s, when this story begins, or even since the book was published in 2010. While it is astounding to see all of the evidence laid out in a row, plain as day, connecting all of the environmental and health crises of 40 years to each other and to the same four men, this book is not really readable enough to recommend. It’s very dense and detailed and well-researched, but at 15 years old too outdated to be worth it. If you have any doubts (hah) about the reality of tobacco harms, climate change, or pesticides, this book certainly has enough evidence to show you you've been duped, but it's been decades...have you been living under a rock? Surprisingly when I started the book the least-relevant chapter was the one about the folly of the Strategic Defense Initiative - the pet project of money-hungry defense contractors - but midway through my read it became extremely relevant. Depressing. I would love to see an updated edition or sequel continuing to connect the dots onward to more climate denial, opioids, the Green New Deal, the election of Trump, and of course extensive COVID-19 and vaccine denial. Let this serve as a lesson to me and others to read this kind of work more promptly and not wait 15 years. show less

To begin with, geology is not at all my subject; I believe I never took a geology-focused course and so last surveyed the topic during a more generic earth sciences class in high school. So it is not at all damning with faint praise to say that I found this book intermittently fascinating and generally comprehensible. Oreskes has done an amazing job of writing a clearly scholarly book on the history of continental drift (the theoretical precursor to plate tectonics) that is nonetheless show more engaging and accessible to the non-specialist. The inclusion of illustrations and diagrams from the original published works for each geological concept profiled was also extremely helpful.

The thesis is that American geologists as a whole rejected continental drift not (as claimed) because the method/origin of the movement was unexplained, but rather because it conflicted with their adherence to the principles of uniformitarianism and made sweeping claims. At this time, American geologists evidently prided themselves on their open-mindedness, rarely arguing for a single theory over others, and they also prioritized fieldwork over theorizing or lab experimentation, further limiting options. Oreskes has evidently done extensive research on the geological milieu, citing everything from the usual papers and monographs through personal letters and notes to course materials and university exams. This emphasis also allows for a more personal look at the geological luminaries of the time, including occasional clues to the important scholarly roles of the women in their lives (all of them were men, naturally...).

Personally, I found Oreskes' conclusions fascinating, as she speculated on the role of assumptions and cultural biases in the formation of scientific consensus. As someone educated into (and out of) the young-earth creationist creed, I wondered how similar concepts hold true of contemporary controversies about the nature and role of science. The author did not make an attempt to expand her conclusions beyond the area studied (likely to her credit), but I would be interested in reading something that did. And now I might even be interested in reading more about geology, which is high praise indeed for this book. show less

God knows I’ve written a few crass or aggressive reviews before but I’m not even going to review this one — I don’t know if I could stop myself from offending everyone, even those in agreement. The problem is not the book — it’s well done and probably every American should read it. It’s just that I spent 20 years of my life as a 3-pack per day smoker — of Camel unfiltered no less. I quit cold turkey in August 2006, but I’ve had a number of relatives die from the cancers show more they got from lifetimes of smoking and even though I was cognizant of a number of things in the book, reading this info, this tale laid out so well by the author comes close to sending me over the edge. I’m not going to say anymore except that I do recommend this book. show less