Its not An Inconvenient Truth yet. But for a movie focused on climate change, Sony Pictures Classics Merchants of Doubt based on the widely read book of the same name by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, and directed by Robert Kenner (Food, Inc.) is already generating a huge volume of discussion. It seems poised to become a must-watch film in the climate debate.

The film, which opens today in Washington, D.C., explores along history of challenges tothe science behind a variety of environmental and public health risks. Smoking. CFCs. Acid rain. Climate change. In many cases, these challenges were linked to corporate interests thus the tobacco industry, for many years, questionedthe emerging science of smokings risks.

Merchants of Doubtis certainly landing in the right news cycle. It comes out in the wake of reports includingby The Washington Post about energyinterests funding of climate skeptic researcher Willie Soon, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In a statementposted on the Web site of the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, Soon responded thathe had been the subject of attacks in the media, but acknowledged that his research had been partly supported by some energy producers something he said had long been a matter of public record. Soon added that in submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

It all plays into a common narrative: That industry doesnt want government regulations, so it tries tocast doubt on the science behind them. Many of those who go to see Merchants of Doubt will, I suspect, go with such a narrative in their minds.

But the film itself presents a more complex picture. True, Merchants of Doubt focuses a great deal on the role of industry in supporting scientific argumentsthat are consistent with less regulation. But it alsoshows that denial of science on issues like climate change is about much more than that. Its aboutcertain deep seated beliefs and ideologies particularly those championing the free market and individual liberty (which we tend to call libertarianism).

None of this is about the science, says Oreskes, a Harvard historian and co-author of the book behind the film, in the movie. All of this is a political debate about the role of government.

In another segment, the film follows libertarian-leaningSkeptic magazine founder Michael Shermer as he tries to convince his ideological compatriots that climate change isnt just something that liberals made up. Shermer concludes that the whole issue has become tribal. Indeed, you can see the emotion on screen at one point as Shermer is challenged from the audience at a libertarian gathering, where hes gone to present the case for climate change being real.

So whatreallydrives attacks on certain bodies of environmental and public health science? Is there a root cause?To address that question in the context of Merchants of Doubt, Icalled the woman behind it all Oreskes. In our conversation, I asked Oreskes whom Ive known for a long time about my concern. And she brought up what I considered a very goodanalogy to help both address it and also explain it.

Thats the chicken and egg thing, she explained. Theres two stories to be told: One is the supply of disinformation, and the other is the demand, why do people accept it, and buy it. Our book is definitely a supply side story, because we stumbled across a supply side story. I think the demand side is also important to understand.

Supply and demand.It fits the situation nicely.Supply in this context would refer to the volume of arguments and claims in the public arena that challenge mainstream science with respect to environmental or public health risks. For many of these issues, these claims take a similar form. Scientists have asserted the existence of a risk say, smoking causes lung cancer and the claims in question then sow doubt about this conclusion. (Hence the film and book title.)

View original post here:

Why science denial is about much more than corporate interests