Merchants of Doubt

2014

0
IMDb Rating 7.7 10 3095

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 0 times
June 23, 2015 at 05:12 PM

Director

Cast

720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
751.55 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 36 min
P/S 2 / 14
1.44 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
1hr 36 min
P/S 2 / 19

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by LipjamUK 1 / 10

Bad people do bad things.... and what does that prove?

This documentary starts with these merchants of doubt and their work with tobacco industries. The case builds against disinformation regarding the detrimental effects of cigarettes on health. It then moves to chemicals in fire retardants. However, the viewer is being lead all the while to the case for man-made climate change. It is put alongside the other scientific cases and effectively gives the viewer the impression that it has the same scientific validity.

Making a case that there are paid lackeys of vested interests who made erroneous statements previously on one subject does not make a case one way or the other on the validity of an other subject. It just demonstrates that there are vested interests using a tried and tested strategy for the continuation of their business at all costs. The fact that these companies are abusing our planet for the own financial gain is a fact. Should we stop them? Of course yes! Should we look after the environment? Of course we should! Does that mean everything said about man made climate change is true? I just don't know.

If man made climate change is a fact. I would consider myself a skeptic for no other reason that if giant super computers cannot predict the weather for more than 3 days with any degree of accuracy and then I am told that climate can be predicted 10, 20, 100 years in the future? Excuse me if I ask what is the basis for making such bold predictions? The climate can change and this is a fact otherwise we would still be in an ice age. The causes and the end results of this is where I would struggle because I have no faith in the research or the proponents of this case. The research is just not sufficient nor is it likely to be in the near future. Those making it are very big on zeal but not so hot on evidence.

Call me naive but I thought the way to silence skeptics is to prove your hypothesis beyond doubt. Not to complain that there are those who disagree. This is a distraction and nothing to do with whether the case being made is valid. One of the main problems I have with Climate Change (and the trend in most recent headline research) is it is impossible to prove or disprove. It is more akin to religious faith than provable science because it is too far away, or too long ago, or not yet happened. You just have to believe it because who can show it to you. It is the evidence for things not yet seen, nor likely to be.

This documentary is a propaganda tool for climate change. I say this because having considered all the above. The amount of actual evidence presented proving man-made climate change is virtually non existent. It is mostly emotive dialogue and anecdotal presentation. They spend most of the film discrediting their opponents. Isn't that the point made at the start about what the tobacco industry did? They boohoo about getting nasty emails from nasty people. They repeat the mantra that climate change is true because they have been to Antarctica and because they say it is.

What has all this to do with valid science? The fact people can say I do not believe in ... whatever the theory is means you just have not proved it. Good science is about proving your hypothesis beyond doubt. If it is too nuanced for a clear demonstration then that is sufficient cause for the possibility that you may be mistaken. If the theory is too complicated to outline simply then that means you do not fully understand what you are trying to explain. Stop saying it's proved it when you cannot produce incontrovertible proof. Of course the proof cannot be produced because this proof exists in the future and unless someone can build a time machine it can never be proved, it so it will always remain a hypothesis at best. Hence the need for propaganda like this.

Reviewed by Jesse Furlong 8 / 10

Merchants of Doubt is a worthwhile, though depressing film.

Kenner tells us that big oil is using the same tactics – and often the same personnel – as big tobacco: set up any number of supposedly independent thinktanks, get plausible professionals on the (mouthwatering) payroll, and just sow the seeds of doubt. You undermine conviction, filibuster government action, fog public opinion, get brazen blowhards to shout loudly on Fox News. And the people best at this are the ageing, neocon attack dogs, veterans of the tobacco wars, who in the evening of their lives find a thrilling new purpose in climate change doubt-production.

Reviewed by Robert J. Maxwell 8 / 10

Compelling, Persuasive, and Entertaining.

A felicitously presented documentary on global warming -- or rather how to under mine acceptance of scientific findings. Full disclosure: I am a behavioral scientist who has spent thirty years in research and can generally tell the good from the bad.

According to this film it all began with the tobacco industry. I don't know why it's so consistently called "big tobacco" since as far as I can tell there is no such thing as "little tobacco." If there were, what would it look like -- a Mom and Pop store with a patch of tobacco plants in the back yard and a cigarette rolling machine? Anyway -- you'll have to excuse my divagations. The voices tell me to do it from time to time.

Anyway, things began to get a bit hot for the tobacco industry in the 1950s with the growing public awareness of what appeared to be a link between smoking and lung cancer. So they hired a PR firm to help them out, and it worked fine for forty or fifty years. There was a scroll of techniques for disarming the public, for introducing doubt about the conclusion. I didn't write the dozen or so down because I wasn't taking notes, but they ran along lines like "attack the messenger", "find another enemy," "muddy the waters," "pay for your own experts," "say we need more research," and the like.

It was really a dirty business, not just because it wound up killing so many people but because it laid out a playbook for handling controversies in other scientific areas backed by vested interests. The techniques were so effective at inducing confusion that other industries have picked them up and used them. All of the techniques are now being used daily by the fossil fuel industry.

Some of the "merchants of doubt" are proud of their profession, as all effective professionals should be. The most agreeable of them admits to enjoying sending anonymous death threats to climate scientists, and I would be surprised if there weren't ill-paid human robots in Macedonia or someplace who were being paid to grind out insults and fake news about what they call "global warming alarmism."

There is no debate in scientific circles about anthropogenic global warming. The only questions left are about details, not about human contributions to climate change. That matter is settled. Look up Global Warming Controversy in Wikipedia. And recall, though the film doesn't mention it, that most leaders of the developed world came to an agreement in Kyoto about reducing greenhouse gases. We withdrew from the Kyoto accords some ten years ago, when we were the world's leading polluter. It was 2015 when about 200 countries were represented at a meeting in Paris and agreed to more stringent rules governing greenhouse gas emission, including China, which had taken over the number one spot. The USA signed the agreement too but we're now in the process of pulling out.

I'd always wondered what exactly motivated the people who stood firm in opposition to the indisputable findings of scientists around the world. It had to be something more general, more implanted in the mind, than simple skepticism because, after all, scientists are among the most skeptical people on earth. Without giving it much thought, I finally came to think it might be simply that acceptance of anthropogenic global warming had somehow come to be defined as a "liberal" position. (To me, it was about as liberal as the Zika virus.)

But the rhetoric of "climate deniers" pins it down to an impulse that no one can argue with -- the desire for "freedom," specifically freedom from still more government regulations. Nobody wants Big Brother telling him what to eat or what kind of energy to use. Another reasons, briefly referred to, is that most scientists are poor public performers. They don't pound their chests and bellow, and they talk like wimps. Compare Bill Nye the Science Guy with Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. I mean, for Bog's sake, Nye wears a BOW TIE!

I doubt that the program will persuade anyone who denies AGW that they're wrong. It's tough for anyone to admit he's wrong. I'm afraid a lot of people will dismiss the program as still more socialist propaganda. However, it's a well-done documentary, both in terms of the narrative and the visual effects. It's not at all academic. It's far too clear for that -- and much more entertaining.

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment