Talk:Merchants of Doubt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Add reference to 2010 The Polluters: The Making of Our Chemically Altered Environment, a similar book by Benjamin Ross and Steven Amter, on the little-known history?

Add reference to the 2010 The Polluters: The Making of Our Chemically Altered Environment, a similar book (ISBN 978-0-19-973995-0) by Benjamin Ross and Steven Amter, on the little-known history (written before the BP spill and the West Virginia mining disaster (Massey Energy)? For review, see Washington Post's Seth Shulman (of The Telephone Gambit: http://www.amazon.com/Polluters-Making-Chemically-Altered-Environment/dp/0199739951 including the Chemical Manufacturers Association; "... the threat of lung disease from coal dust (coal industry co-opted federal regulators at the Bureau of Mines in the 1920s to avoid rules that would protect miners... 1924 the scientific literature contained studies indicating that "coal dust itself must cause lung disease." Nonetheless, then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover...), or the risk of cancer from vinyl chloride, the authors document how "well-paid advocates concoct[ed] grounds for doubt" and "studied" problems to death as a substitute for action.", "The tactics, which they contend came into full bloom by 1950, set the stage for the environmental woes we face today. As they put it, "Sixty years later, these strategies are still in use, protecting polluters who spew out toxic chemicals and global warming gases.", ... 99.27.174.116 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Text for discussion

The book appears on the best of 2010 lists of Bob Hoover (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and Dan Vergano (USA Today).

I've moved this text from the article, for discussion. Is this information just trivia, or is it really notable for some reason? Certainly any awards would be notable, but surely not a mention in some individuals Top 10 book lists for the year? Johnfos (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In December 2010, in an article for American Thinker, Fred Singer states that Merchants of Doubt attacks several well-known senior physicists, including the late Fred Seitz, a former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Singer says that Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have operated in a "completely unprofessional way", by ignoring factual information, not bothering to consult primary sources, and not interviewing any of the scientists in question. Singer goes on to say, "No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course." He says that he serves on the board of an anti-smoking organization, finds secondhand smoke irritating and unpleasant, and has not been paid by the tobacco lobby or joined any of their front organizations.

I've moved this text from the article, for discussion. Is this information just trivia, or is it really notable for some reason? American Thinker is an exceeding minor publication. Must we mention everytime a fringe website mentions the book? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in "reception". It's a response from one of the major subjects of the book, not a review from a third party. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence in the Seitz and Singer section saying something to the effect that Singer rejected Oreskes and Conway's characertisation of himself and Seitz. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Another review:

Schmidt, Gavin (January 17, 2011). "Sowing Seeds Of Doubt
How some scientists can twist the facts to suit ends other than scientific truth". Chemical & Engineering News. 89 (3): 38–9. ISSN 0009-2347.

RDBrown (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup and NPOV

I made an attempt at line-editing to trim the most egregious instances of presenting opinions as fact, and also to improve flow & clarity. See what you think.

I'm pretty sure I've seen other reviews critical of the book (I haven't read it). Our article quotes 7 positive and 1 negative reviews, and that one a rebuttal by one of the groups the book criticized. This seems unbalanced. Comments? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Per a quick Google check, the 7:1 pos to neg ratio is (if anything) understated. Well-rec'd book. I'm presently reviewing Nicolas Nierenberg's material, suggested AWB by WMC but never incorporated here (ims). He does specifically address MoD in some "Climate Musings" posts, maybe there's something there we could use. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this just a footnote, or discussion? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Science book

I can't imagine an article where the link wouldn't be a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Retain Politics of global warming (United States) Public opinion on climate change Climate change controversy wikilinks.

Retain Politics of global warming (United States), Public opinion on climate change, and Climate change controversy wikilinks. 99.181.150.151 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

With that many ''X'' of global warming links, why not just link to "global warming" and be done with it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Double posting of author affiliations

I recently removed a superfluous posting of the author's academic affiliations in the "Themes" section. Another editor reverted, commenting "basic author affiliations required in an article like this." However, we already have an "Authors" section in the article, listing these in detail -- in addition to their wikilinked bios. We don't need them repeated here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Merchants of Doubt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is good, lead good, articke complies sufficiently with WP:MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to WP:RS, no evidence of WP:OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, without trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitably licensed, caption not required for cover in infobox

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I find no problems with this article so am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Much appreciated! Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why was this deleted?

• How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused in current Volume 17 Number 2 Skeptic (U.S. magazine) cites book

99.181.132.75 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be included? Not about the book and only one mention of the book in a long footnote. Vsmith (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

This article is not neutral as any substantive criticism of the book has been condensed into two paragraphs and pushed to the very end of the article. A whole section is devoted to criticising Seitz and Singer, yet Singer's response receives only a single paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Both individuals are criticised in the book. The purpose of this entry is to describe the book. Reception has been overwhelmingly positive. This article wasn't created to provide a personal space for Seitz and Singer to respond to Oreskes and Conway. If they wish to do that, let them write their own book. Wikispan (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Singer is a living person and it's simply not good enough to have an article full of criticism of him and then limit coverage of his response to one paragraph at the end. That is not neutral and it flies in the face the basic consideration that we give to living people on WP. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Flies in the face of? Wikipedia's biography of living persons rules expressively permit substantiated claims and this book is an academic work on the history of science. There would be nothing in it that isn't substantiated and referenced.

I've been pretty disappointed with the way things have unfolded with this article. At one point all substantive criticisms of the book were removed, see here. We've also had a situation where several instances of "According to Oreskes and Conway..." were removed, see here, but there is actually no problem with that phrasing, as WP:SAY explains. The net result of this sort of editing is to give more prominence to the author's views and less to their critics, as I've said above. Johnfos (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not saying the article is perfect as is, but I have to agree with the edits that you mention. I don't think they are problematic or introduce POV. This one is right, in so much as we can't have the first half the Reception section dedicated to response from the those criticized in the book. Critical reception of the book has been overwhelming positive, and there's no parity between reviews in Science or Christian Science Monitor on one hand and American Thinker on the other. Ergo, the Reception section should be overwhelming positive, per WP:WEIGHT. Certainly the responses from Singer and the Marshall Institute deserve to be mentioned in the article, but probably in a separate section, and certainly with less prominence. As far as this diff is concerned, I don't see how this raises POV concerns. The article is about the book, so it should obvious to the reader that we're describing what the book says, and that these are the views of the authors. So saying "The book says that.." seems equivalent to "According to Oreskes and Conway". From a style standpoint, I think some mix of the two is probably best. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought that the "reception of the book has been overwhelming positive", as most reviewers have some sort of quibble with the book. Yet that phrase has been mentioned twice here. If there is a source for it it could be used in the article. Otherwise it is probably best avoided. Johnfos (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that article needs to say "reception of the book has been overwhelming positive" (though I'm not against that either). I'm only saying that if you look at the reviews that have been published in mainstream, wide circulation media outlets, all the reviews I'm aware of have been positive. Sure, some might contain a few negative points, but even for these the overall review is always net positive. Therefore, per WP:WEIGHT the reception section should contain mostly/overwhelmingly praise. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there is no source for the statement that "reception of the book has been overwhelming positive". That is just a judgement call on the part of two editors here. I think the statement made in the article that most reviewers received the book favorably is better.

It is a material fact that the reception of the book has been overwhelmingly positive. Whoever suggests otherwise failed in a such a spectacular way to competently research this question it suggests a real effort to fail. As of today Amazon readers have it at 4 out of 5 stars and the professional book reviewers who praised it reads like a who's who in newspaper, magazine and trade publishing- their names and comments are well sampled on the book's homepage here:

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/praise.html

The motivated and systematic denial of reality the book exposes will not be permitted to extend itself into Wikipedia- Wikipedia requires a neutral POV presentation of reality, where "neutral POV" will not be subverted to mean "there exists no consensus reality at all". Please read the Wikipedia "terms of use" and the definition of "verifiable" for further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If Singer's rebuffs are not to be included in the Reception section then they must be pushed up to the Sietz and Singer section. Then we would have the criticisms and response together, which is an ideal situation. Johnfos (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Singer's rebuffs are immaterial to the purpose of this Wikipedia entry, which is to cover the book, the book's contents and the social impact of the book.

Specifically, this Wikipedia entry is not a venue to debate the contents of the book by those mentioned in the book or others.

If Singer cares to rebuff, Singer can do so on his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue is still unresolved. From the looks of it William O’Keefe, Fred Seitz & Fred Singer's opinions receive undue weight. This is an article about a book on history, not a debate on the research demonstrated by that book. I'm going to edit the O'Keefe & Kueter sections to make their point of origin more clear. I recommend that a braver editor merely deletes their commentary.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential new source

ABC's Big Ideas program provides an hour long interview from a Melbourne literary festival with Naomi Oreskes, largely related to the book if anyone is interested in including any of the information into the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is at least one peer-reviewed paper demolishing Oreskes claims re Nierenberg

There is at least one peer-reviewed paper demolishing Oreskes claims re Nierenberg; see http://nierenbergclimate.blogspot.com/2010/07/our-peer-reviewed-paper-is-published.html. I'm not sure whether than paper covers the same ground as the book; likely it does William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the case does seem strongest for Singer and Seitz, and weaker for Nierenberg and Jastrow... I am a bit concerned that this short stub most likely oversimplifies things, so would be grateful if others could bring in more relevant sources and help to expand it. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence this criticism applies to the book? While I haven't read the Nierenberg paper thoroughly yet, I skimmed it, and cross-checked it against the section of the book. So far, I haven't found any of the issues that Nierenberg raised in the book. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point: I haven't read the book. Oreskes may have been wise enough to revise that stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What a joke. A paper by Nicholas Nierenberg et. al. demolishes criticisms of William Nierenberg? Hardly. Who peer reviewed it, Nierenberg's mother? In any case, it "demolishes" nothing. As Gavin Schmidt wrote, "Having read Nicholas Nierenberg's paper and the relevant parts of MoD, the issue is in the interpretation of William Nierenberg's actions on the 1983 report. NN claims essentially that the WN synthesis was reflective of the consensus on the committee, Oreskes and Conway see it as slanted towards inaction. It is a pretty nuanced issue, and while I can see why the parties involved have taken the positions they have, I'm not convinced that there is any obvious resolution of these opinions. But having said that, this is but a small part of the O&C case, and the evidence that they bring together overall is very convincing."

Meanwhile, Nicholas Nierenberg has teamed up with Ross McKitrick. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

References

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)

His quotes from Mathus are rearranged bits from different places and edited and out of context to attribute something to Malthus he never meant. Malthus was of an age where people made long reasoned arguments, not the soundbite era, and the bits quoted were for the alternatives to restraint and good development. Then he spends a good deal of the book on eugenics. In Germany where he wants to raise the unthinking hate factor of his book they were busy trying to have more of their 'Aryan' children and remove 'inferior races' to provide 'lebensraum'. That had nothing to do with reducing the overall population. As to population control no secret mission is required to explain its desire. It was obvious to people who had never read Malthus or had any prompting from outside their country that continually doubling the population could be a problem.

Then he goes on about Rachael Carson and DDT. Yes I agree she overstated things. But that is no excuse for Zubrin going totally the opposite way. DDT was overused and having someone say it is fine for humans if used properly does not affect people doesn't mean it wasn't overused. The mosquitos got resistant and more and more DDT got used even when it was ineffective. And it didn't degrade quickly. If it had been used all at once round the word in a controlled way there might have been a chance with malaria but it wasn't.

As to nuclear power the simple fact is people are worried by huge things that blow up and put out invisible poison that lasts thousands of years. That doesn't need any conspiracy. Personally I think it should be developed more as it will almost certainly be needed but unfortunately the history of the industry hasn't worked in its favor.

Then the climate change bit. Total absurd rubbish on his part. This is where I really say the arguments are reductio ad hitlerium just dumping this in with Hitlers Germany. I think this is more reigous than anything else - God must have devised the best possible world therefore it is impossible for humans to harm it or cause trouble for themselves and unbridled capitalism is God's way for us to improve.

This is no more scientific than any of the pseudo scientific rationales any lobby organization does. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

p.s. more to the point here, it doesn't have anything to do with Merchants of Doubt. Linking the two would be WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt was published by Bloomsbury Press, a major published with an award-winning academic section. It was written by well-respected experts. It's not quite clear how reliable Google Scholar is, but it seems to have nearly 2.5k academic references. Merchants of Despair was published by a small right-wing fringe publisher, and has been cited, by the same standard, 19 times. It was written by an engineer - nothing wrong with being an engineer, but he has neither the scientific not the historical training one would hope for in an author on this topic. These books are not remotely comparable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Dmcq, I appreciate your passion. However Modespair is primarily about high-brow, though ultimately ,supremely arrogant misanthropy, being masked with "scientific arguments". Not so much anti-Malthus but anti-malthusian, a political frame of mind. For that reason I find your reasoning above on how it was about removing "undesireables" in Nazi Germany, not reducing population per se, a bit of a non-sequitur. As the "scientists" over-emphasized differences in race, overemphaized apolitical scientific-facts, to produce a rationale for pursuing a devastating political/genocidal ideology. I will however refrain from giving you my own run-thru critique of MoDoubt and Despair. They are ultimately attacking the same thing from different standponts - The problem of amplifying uncertainties of policy-based evidence making, when it is politically expedient to do so.
• Both books are about how facts are biasly presented & frequently taken and used by those with an axe-to-grind in the politcal sphere, yet their ultimate goal or principle motivation, of misanthropy/profits, is frequently hidden from view, behind these biasing motivations. Having read both books and finding flaws with select arguments in some areas in both, I still found them both to be illuminating in some historical areas. In regard to how frequently tenuous scientific facts, are picked up and then over-stated by politicians and NGOs. Fear, uncertainty and doubt continues to be increasingly used to massage the public mindset, to do or prefer 1 thing, over the other. Such as trying to come to a consensus solution for global warming or a consensus on what temperature or concentration of CO2, we should aim for. Though as I am often criticized for turning the talk page into a forum, WP:NOTFORUM, I will stop there, in case someone tries to again use the kilobyte size of my additions, to a particular talk page as a means to add to the length of the stick they fashioned against me, so that their drum-beat could be louder, a drum-beat of "ban,ban,ban".

• To Stephan Schulz, thank you for that addition, but aren't you now somewhat proving the point, that MoDespair is indeed a "scholarly work", having been referenced some 19 times apparently, is that right? Secondly, on your more recent tact to poo-poo Zubrin's credentials. Checking LinkedIn, Zubrin, University of Washington, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Nuclear Engineering 1983 - 1988. So your claim that he doesn't have "the scientific training one would hope for an author", is fairly weak on the ground. He has also published a large amount on sociological-issues in more recent years. He's no fan of Trump for example, if you would like to look up his other, more openly-political writings of late? Are these other writings and views, the path he needs to express, to permit entry into the wikipedia-tree-house? Is this how this works?

If you think that 19 citations on Google Scholar make a work scholarly, you should note that the 2015 edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion alone has 23 citations. Your LinkedIn link is broken, at least for me. Yes, he has a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. That's not a mean degree, but it qualifies him to comment on this issue exactly as much as it qualifies him to remove your appendix, to navigate a supertanker, or to perform controlled demolitions. Not liking Trump may be a necessary property for an informed human, but it's not a sufficient one. Our WP:V policy requires published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not books by non-experts published by fringe publishers otherwise known primarily for polemic propaganda booklets. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lastly, User:Adrian J. Hunter, I similarly appreciate your youtube research, however again, it seems a little-cherry picked. (1) Zubrin was responding to Oreskes, he has indeed made this statement explicitly that his tome was a response to Oreskes, if that is truly required, to spell out? (2) No one is claiming that both books received the same readership or were advertised as well as one another? How does that even matter? All this is really about, I would have thought, was : is it WP:NOTABLE that not only an author with a PhD but an author with an established history of writing influencial works, in the form of The Case for Mars, read by Elon Musk for example, that author has also written a book length response to Oreskes' MoDoubt, a response titled MoDespair, that appeared, less than 12 months after Oreskes' MoDoubt was published in 2010. Zubrin's book length response, far from being unknown, has received amongst other things, 19 citations on google scholar, book reviews on Forbes, the Washington Post etc. Yet for some truly curious reason, it isn't being permitted to be mentioned in this article? So can I ask, exactly why has it been censored out, and no mention of it is being made, in this article? A censoring of a book, simply because some here, strenuously disagree with its contents?

• As far as I can see it. The argument in opposition to the addition has run the gamut, ranging ironically, considering the title, "Merchants of Doubt", thru the following false characterizations: "(A) no notable book reviews, (B)no scholarly references, (C)Other editors being incapable of finding an explicit reference that spells it out, in block capitals, that Zubrin was responding to Oreskes, when this is truly mind-numbingly obvious but most hypocritical of all perhaps, is (D)The Point of view that the book "seems" to do nothing but "reductio-ad-hiterlum", meaning, it perhaps over-states it's argument. Though correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that akin to the very same, "reductio-ad-tobacco-industry", that the peer-reviewed critique of Oreskes' book essentially states? A criticism that we include here on this article? That Oreskes made things too political or activism tainted?

Sociologist Reiner Grundmann's review in BioSocieties journal, acknowledges that the book is well researched and factually based, but criticizes the book as being written in a black and white manner...Grundmann sees [Oreskes' book] less as a scholarly work than a passionate attack and overall as a problematic book

• The dwelling on certain facts, that both books do and what both books perhaps intentionally, censor out from discussion, to advance their respective arguments, is as illuminating as the facts that they do raise. Gut-feeling-tribalistic-dismissal, of all counterpoints to your world-view, is western-civilization's principle counter-intellectual threat. A treatment of both your political-tribe and the opposing poilitical-tribe's facts, concerns, fables and uncertainties, with equal scrutiny, equal skepticism grilled on both, is the only path we have, to a more evolved and conscientious future.

• Boundarylayer (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Merchants of Despair is simply not a response to Merchants of Doubt and therefore we have no business mentioning in this article. Other than having similar titles, they are in no way related. MOD and Oreskes are not even mentioned in the index of the book, as you can verify on Amazon. And if was intended to be a response to MOD, you'd expect that to be mentioned on the blurb on the backcover or in editorial reviews or on the publisher's website, but it is not. Case closed. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to rely of what secondary sources say about a topic, we can't make our own connections. Zubrin isn't an established expert, so we'd need a reliable source to demonstrate that Zubrin's opinion on this book is notable.

• Larry Bell's book review doesn't describe Zubrin's book as a response to Merchants of Doubt
• Murchison's review doesn't describe Zubrin's book as a response to Merchants of Doubt
• Heiser's review review doesn't describe Zubrin's book as a response to Merchants of Doubt
• The mboten.com blurb - which doesn't appear to be an RS - doesn't describe Zubrin's book as a response to Merchants of Doubt
• The portion of the Gray review that's above the paywall doesn't describe Zubrin's book as a response to Merchants of Doubt.

Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I said p.s. the thing that is to the point here is WP:OR. I will quote the relevant bit which is the second sentence of that policy "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". You might think something is obvious, the sources do not support you. Wikipedia has to go by the sources. Long reams of your own text and thoughts is not a source. Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dmcq: IOW, I could have saved myself some effort if I'd read your comment my carefully :) Guettarda (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I probably should have said that first in what I said but it is just what others had said before me and what you reinforced. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Zubrin has stated that his book is "a refutation of Merchants of Doubt, end to end." While, to "Yilloslime" & Guettarda, while no online reviewers of Merchants of Despair may have spelled this out in block capitals, that does not change the fact that these are the author's sentiments : Oreskes' book is what motivated him, in part, to pen his own book. Therefore all the false characterizations about how this is WP:OR, as suggested by user Dmcq, or any more of the myriad of other fantasies dreamt up, are entirely without a basis in reality.

To therefore move on from them. Would a reliable reference from Zubrin, spelling this out, that his book was penned as a literary refutation, allow entry into the article? Or am I understanding Guettarda here, where they seem to be implying that we'd need a secondary source, a reviewer? As according to them - "Zubrin isn't an established expert [on what, conspiracy theories?], so we'd need a reliable source to demonstrate that Zubrin's opinion [opinion? surely you mean book?] on this [other Merchants of..] book is notable."

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that MODespair is actually a response to MODoubt. Only assertions by Boundarylayer (talk · contribs). "Robert Zubrin has stated that his book is "a refutation of Merchants of Doubt, end to end."" . If it is intended to be a response, why is MODoubt not mentioned in the index? Or Naomi Oreskes? Provide a verifible reference that Zubrin intended what you claim intended, then we talk about including it. And as to whether or not such a ref would justify inclusion of the material: it's really hard to deal with hypotheticals. I'd need to see what we're talking about. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

while no online reviewers of Merchants of Despair may have spelled this out in block capitals, that does not change the fact that these are the author's sentiments : Oreskes' book is what motivated him, in part, to pen his own book. Therefore all the false characterizations about how this is WP:OR

Boundarylayer, that's precisely what OR is. If reliable sources don't spell it out, Wikipedia articles can't report it. To infer things from sources, to use a variety of sources to draw conclusions that aren't already present in any individual source - that's what OR is.

I looked through the index of Zubrin's book, but I could find no entry for Oresekes, or COnway, or Merchants of Doubt. I looked through its rich collection of footnotes, and while Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon and Matthew Connelly show up over and over in the footnotes, Oreskes and Conway do not. Nor are they mentioned in the Preface.

While the title of Zubrin's book may play off the name of this book, the idea that Zubrin's book is a response to it isn't supported either by reliable sources or by the content of the book. Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And titles are often chosen by publishers rather than authors ([1]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)