(2011), a prominent opponent of greenhouse gas regulation Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of
politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have "played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions". The book criticizes the so-called Merchants of Doubt, some predominantly American science key players, above all
Bill Nierenberg,
Fred Seitz, and
Fred Singer. All three are physicists: Singer was a space and satellite researcher, whereas Nierenberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb. They have been active on topics like acid rain, tobacco smoking, global warming and pesticides. The book says that these scientists have challenged and diluted the
scientific consensus in the various fields, as of the
dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the "
ozone hole", and the existence of
anthropogenic climate change. The authors have a strong doubt about the ability of the media to differentiate between false truth and the actual science in question; however, they stop short of endorsing censorship in the name of science. Oreskes and Conway state: "small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power". The main conclusion of the book is that there would have been more progress in policy making if not for the influence of the contrarian "experts", who tried for ideological reasons to undermine trust in the science base for regulation. Similar conclusions were already drawn, among others on
Frederick Seitz and
William Nierenberg in the book
Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change (2010) by Australian academic
Clive Hamilton. ==Reception==