• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Podcast- Brad Harris’ “Context”... ‘Merchants of Doubt’ episode

0404669d307f9ecc01d4e52a046a487a.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I already know you let someone else tell you what to believe. Have any accurate information?
Click to expand...
:roll:

You get the accurate information by reading the book, or at least listening to the podcast.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

You get the accurate information by reading the book, or at least listening to the podcast.
Click to expand...

Why not just link the source material?
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, I mean the actual paperwork referenced by the book.
Click to expand...
lol

It's a freaking book. They are drawing on decades of articles, papers, and literally 50 million pages of documents published in connection with tobacco litigation in the 90s. Again, it took two authors about five years of research to put this all together.

What's your plan here? Are you going to ask me to replicate all of their work, then retype it 5000 characters at a time in this thread? Only to have you recite your usual denialist mantras? Hard pass.
 
Merchants of Smear | National Review


https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/merchants-smear-rachelle-peterson/



Mar 6, 2015 - Fred Singer in Merchants of Doubt Conspiracy theorists make an ad ... Merchants of Doubt is conspiracy theory on the order of The Matrix or ...

". . . Merchants of Doubt is conspiracy theory on the order of The Matrix or The X-Files, except that it is presented as non-fiction. Far-right extremists once evoked a Communist conspiracy to put fluoride in the water supply; now we have the progressive Left evoking a capitalist conspiracy to put dangerous doubts in the idea supply. . . ."

". . . The link from yesteryear’s merchants of smoking doubt to today’s climate-change doubters is tenuous and depends almost entirely on an argument from analogy. Analogies, of course, can create powerful impressions: Think of Arthur Miller’s success in picturing the Salem witch trials as the template for Congress’s efforts during the Cold War to uncover Communist subversion. The propagandist is not concerned with whether the analogy is fair, but only with its capacity to mold public perception.
Kenner mashes up clips of tobacco CEOs averring that “there is no consensus” about the harms of smoking with clips of Cato Institute and Heartland Institute scholars swearing that no consensus exists on global warming. Oreskes, in an on-screen appearance, manages to cite S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, two prominent climate-change skeptics who had once contended that second-hand smoke isn’t necessarily harmful, but admits that she can’t prove that they were manipulated by money. (Her own theory is that because both began their careers during the Soviet arms race, they became obsessed with anti-Communism and fought any scientific study whose conclusions seemed to invite government regulation.). . . "
 
Visbek said:
lol

It's a freaking book. They are drawing on decades of articles, papers, and literally 50 million pages of documents published in connection with tobacco litigation in the 90s. Again, it took two authors about five years of research to put this all together.

What's your plan here? Are you going to ask me to replicate all of their work, then retype it 5000 characters at a time in this thread? Only to have you recite your usual denialist mantras? Hard pass.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's easy to paint what ever picture you want that way.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes.

You are relying on what other people say. You have no first-hand facts in front of you... like usual...
Click to expand...
lol

Feel free to purchase the book, go through every reference of every document they discuss, and then explain to us what they got wrong.
 
Visbek said:
lol

Feel free to purchase the book, go through every reference of every document they discuss, and then explain to us what they got wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should do that, pointing out what they got right, since you are promoting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom