Human activities impact the environment and change the outlook of the planet. The consequences of anthropological actions reverberate across all aspects of the Earth’s habitat. However, few have amassed as much attention and debate as global climate change has inspired in recent decades. Ranging from extremely negative perception of future prospects due to global warming to abrupt denial of human role in the atmospheric changes, opinions are as diverse as the weather phenomena. Yet, despite the immense popularity of the debate, the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt” conveys the message that the scientific community is actually in agreement on the fact of human-induced climate change. The subsequent implication is that the popular denial of the harmful effects of global warming or human involvement in it is driven primarily by corporate and political interests.
The film makes frequent references towards illusionists’ tricks and ways of deceiving the public. Such trickery is used as an analogy to explain how corporations and political figures use science to blur the public perception of the issues, specifically, the harm of tobacco, toxic effects of flame retardants, and global warming. The main idea of the movie is that in the same way magicians divert the attention of the audience in order to perform a trick, public relations agencies accentuate the uncertainty and doubt regarding the negative side of global climate change. In my opinion, this is not an appropriate comparison because magicians do not change the outlay of the scene, while the statements of the deniers of climate change are not as stable and consistent.
One of the most important messages of the film is that there is a scientific consensus on the harmful effect of climate change. Yet, despite the facts, data, and the number of supporting viewpoints, many people tend to disregard the scientific truth and seek opinions, which would cast doubt on the statement made by the climatologists or refute their arguments completely. I believe that the major reason why the public is so eager to uphold skepticism and denial lies in fear of changing the status quo. Psychologically, people resist any potential intrusion upon their comfort zone. The claims made by climate scientists compromise the habitual way of life.
However, the potential consequences of the changing status quo are worse when there are abundant resources at stake. For example, companies that make profits from oil, coal, and other processes that damage the atmosphere will sustain severe financial losses in case environmental regulations are introduced (Franta). Therefore, it is in their interest to blur the perception, accentuate doubt and uncertainty. Blaming the corporate interest as one of the drivers behind the denial of climate change is also one of the films’ points.
The film is so intent on debunking the statements of the deniers of climate change and their political or corporate bias that it misses its own prejudice. The position of the filmmakers openly favors the scientific viewpoint that global climate change is real, it is caused by human activities, and it definitely has an adversarial effect on the planet. It is peculiar that the historian of science Naomi Oreskes’ argument, essentially mirrors the statement of environmental scientist Fred Singer. Singer explicitly states that all scientists who promote the idea of the harm of the greenhouse gases are wrong (Merchants of Doubt 00:27:32). Oreskes states with no less absolute confidence that there are no scientists who disagree with the role of greenhouse gases in global warming (Merchants of Doubt 00:25:41). Both Oreskes and Singer are continuous proponents of their respective viewpoints, which inevitably influences the way they interpret the evidence and analyze the statements made by other researchers.
Personally, I identify myself as an environmentalist sympathizer propagating green campaigning. However, this affiliation also forces me to unconsciously discount opposing viewpoints even though they might have merit. For instance, I have long believed that global warming is exclusively caused by humans until the information about the natural patterns in the Earth’s environment has convinced me that at least some part of global warming is not the result of human actions (Farrel 93). However, I still hold a negative opinion regarding the companies and industries, which contribute to the greenhouse effect. I also notice that I tend to disregard any statements made by the owners or representatives of such corporations, even when they do not concern climate change (Funk and Hefferon). As a result, I have started to use the ad hominem argument in regards to all public figures, which can potentially create a situation where I might not believe scientific data due to the identity of the person and not the veracity of the evidence.
Partially, the reason why there is so much misunderstanding today lies in the disproportionate information output from the scientific community and the journalists. In my opinion, both approach communication with the public inappropriately. Ideally, each side ought to present an unbiased perspective on their respective spheres. As much as the mission of journalists is the collection and dissemination of new information to the public, the mission of scientists is to inform the public about the latest developments and findings. However, in reality, neither side is entirely objective as each has its own entanglements. As is shown in the film, scientists are influenced by their sponsors and political ideologies, which forces them to look for blind spots in scientific knowledge and emphasize doubt. Similarly, news reporters are driven to find events, which would make an effective headline and attract the audience’s attention, which compels them to ascribe additional importance to seemingly mundane happenstances. In both cases, the message is blurred by subjective opinions.
I believe that there are two main approaches to ascertaining the reliability of information. The first is to favor long-form content over quick statements with eye-catching headlines. The longer it takes for a person to understand the subject matter, the more likely it is to include diverse aspects, opinions, and reasoning. An effective rule for distinguishing whether a particular article is clickbait is looking at the number of efforts needed to create such a piece of news. Long-form content is expensive and time-consuming, which is a sign of proper research. Another option is to use the news media, which are not available to the public for free. If a news source requires a subscription, it has the responsibility to deliver qualitative information, which is less likely to be unfounded or poorly researched.
The second approach is to analyze the potential beneficiaries of a certain viewpoint. For example, a scientific article arguing that greenhouse gases are not as harmful as they are portrayed will definitely benefit plants and companies, which contribute to their generation. Therefore, there is a higher chance of such an article being sponsored by an external party. However, one more option is to check the consistency of certain sources’ claims and statements. First, even large think tanks change their position due to new findings. Second, they explain why such a change of opinion happened and what motivated it. The absence of such explanations or unclear inconsistency are signs of biased journalism, whether it is scientific or public.
Combining these two approaches allows me to list the information sources, which can be considered credible. Such publications as Foreign Policy, The Economist, and Financial Times provide information and analysis for corporations and decision-makers, which is supported by the obligatory subscription necessary to access their content. Scientific American is a unique website, which makes the scientific findings accessible to the public in a journalist manner. The reason why I believe it to be credible lies in the abundance of resources and verifiable links provided by its authors.
Altogether, the film has showcased the problem of scientific information and its coverage in public. Despite the overall scientific consensus on the fact of global climate change, there is still controversy and debate in society. Partially, the denial is attributed to potential corporate and political losses, yet, it is also human nature to regard with disbelief everything that can force them out of the comfort zone. In my opinion, scientists should use the journalists’ means of attracting attention. The more headlines accentuating the danger of climate change the public will see, the more they will believe it. The communicative inefficiency of scientists is the reason why most people still believe that there is no scientific consensus on the question of global climate change.
References
Farrell, Justin. “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization about Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 1, 2016, pp. 92-97.
Franta, Benjamin. “Shell and Exxon’s Secret 1980s Climate Change Warnings.” The Guardian, 2018. Web.
Funk, Cary and Hefferon, Meg. ” U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy.” Pew Research Center, 2019. Web.
“Merchants of Doubt (2014) with Naomi Oreskes, Jamy Ian Swiss, Frederick Singer Movie.” YouTube. Web.