Simply A Masterpiece

Overrated

One of my all time favorites.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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.

Merchants of Doubt is a tale of how the various industries have slighted the American public by putting out propaganda that is amazingly deceptive and oftentimes just plain false. The film opens up with a magician saying that it is his job to tell people lies – but at least he is honest about telling them lies. In contrast, the documentary goes on to prove that not all is what it seems especially when money and politics are involved. Indeed, the attacks and defense come from all fronts and in various methods, from unproved hypotheses, word-spinning, white lies, and just plain falsities being announced from the ground up to those in positions of power.Tobacco has long been proved to have negative effects on health. There are those that acknowledge it clearly and choose to smoke, others that vehemently deny the research and claim it as heresy, and the vast majority that has yet to come to any decisive conclusion. This was particularly true in the past. Clearly the tobacco manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money if the scientific results were made widespread to the public, so they used the resources at their disposal – the marketing budget and political power of these huge corporations dwarfs those of the scientific journals – to effectively stomp out the idea that tobacco would harm its users.The same goes for global warming. They claimed that most scientists in fact did not agree that global warming was happening, even the preposterous idea that the world was actually getting cooler. Afterwards, there were claims that over 30,000 American scientists did not agree with that finding – these "scientists" were later found to be either dead, made-up, or not truly scientists at all. After that, they admitted that global warming was happening – but that mankind was not the cause. Then they claimed that the effects were caused by man, but that curbing the production whose byproducts harmed the atmosphere would not outweigh the benefits that they output. The purpose of this propaganda and flip- flopping was to buy time to delay the skeptics in order to allow them to keep their profits even longer until the next make-believe story.What is scary is that these battles aren't always waged on the outside. There are methods that companies use in order to get on the inside of their "enemies," many of which are supposed to be neutral. There are such methods as death threats, both public and private, some dispatched by companies while others are victims of fanaticism. Still yet are the moles that hide behind titles and sneak in to the root of their problems. For example, one think tank institute's president ended up being a registered lobbyist for a cause he had a conflict of interest in. To even imagine how this preposterous situation could come up naturally is baffling to say the least, but it is quite difficult to believe that it is a coincidence. This is not the only case – three of the major producers of flame retardants were have found to be the sole supporters of a Citizens for Fire Safety organization. Further lies were found in a doctor's inconsistent testimony that three infant patients of his that never existed died from pillows that weren't flameproof, all for the support of flame retardant products. The same magician that was introduced at the beginning of the movie later says that those in his profession often tell smaller lies just to cover up for larger lies. Even the relationship between global warming and oil is littered with lies told to increase opportunities. While this clearly crosses the lines of morality, it is in a way admirable in terms of the analytical skills and methodical approach taken to effectively persuade their audiences. One must be an effective communicator, like a magician, in order to sway the mind and perspective of your audience. We can take the opportunity to learn from how they apply these methods in argumentation and persuasion. If you have the motivation to make whoever you are addressing to believe something else, to persuade or argue with them towards another opinion, you would have to do some research and change up your methods in order to increase your chances of success. We have learned from Merchants of Doubt that there are many ways to do this. Although you cannot fool everyone, if you have an idea of what doubts are being brought to the table, you can potentially eliminate them from being brought up in the first place. Alternatively, you could just tell a smaller lie in order to cover up the truth. Even furthermore, you could also just bring up the reputation of other "dependable" sources to "prove" your point, regardless if what you claim is true or not. There will always be skeptics, but that doesn't mean that you cannot persuade them. Even if someone doesn't believe what you say, you can always take a step in his or her direction. If someone tells you that eating vegetables is good for you and you argue that they are not, maybe you can make progress by saying something like "well, maybe vegetables aren't bad for you," or "eating vegetables is good for you, but choosing not to eat vegetables will not necessarily adversely affect your health." Going a step further, you could make the argument that the health benefits provided by eating vegetables do not outweigh the taste that you must endure while eating. You might even draw up claims that the researchers for the FDA support your conclusion whether they do or not. The point is that there are many ways to persuade people to believe or offer alternative perspectives regarding what you want them to. Even magic cannot be entirely eliminated as an option. Kenner, Robert (Producer, Director) & Robledo, Melissa (Producer). (2014). Merchants of Doubt (Documentary). United States: Sony Pictures Classics.

Please note - I do not wish to express an opinion on whether the climate is warming or what may be responsible for it if it is. I only want to talk about the structure of this movie.OK, so the _point_ of this movie is to reinforce the idea that the climate is warming, and that it is man that is causing the warming through excessive usage of carbon. Secondarily, it supports the notion of a carbon tax to "battle global warming".How do they do it? First, they introduce an enemy no one can argue against - tobacco.They correctly show how professional deceivers and manipulators, "PR" companies, facilitated the continued killing of people all over the planet by weaving "doubt" into the public debate and therefore diluting the opinion against tobacco and short-circuiting or at least delaying and neutering laws that would tend to increase cigarette regulation.They interlace the magician/card-man into the narrative to sort of get you on their side by making you feel like an "insider", as if they are taking you into a private confidence.We are shown the magic and legal tricks and then we are shown the "suckers" who fall for the tricks. This makes us feel superior to the victims and reinforces the "insider" illusion. It _is_ an illusion because we are NOT insiders. We are just people watching a movie. No secrets are ever revealed.After they take us through the tobacco episode, they throw-in 3-card Monty and talk about the whole scam. For extra emphasis they even make the dealer and his shill black men just to take it over the top. After all, those guys cannot be trusted. Right? The use of racist stereotypes should be a clue for us as to the nature and character of the film makers. Once they firmly plant the idea that there are those who willingly deceive us for profit or other motives, and who are "bad men", we are set up to disbelieve anyone in a suit, or even any "so-called-expert" who tends to contradict the common opinion, after all everyone KNEW tobacco was killing people, it was the common opinion among the enlightened.And now for the point of the whole trick - Global Warming. Right off the bat they show us a science type, adjacent to the previously shown liars and con men as if in a prison line-up, who just happens to be presenting some pretty good evidence that there is more to global warming than just us driving our cars and heating our houses.BAM - guilt by association. And you never saw it coming.The thing is this: whatever you think about climate warming, that this film has deceived us by obvious manipulation should be an alarm. It goes to the character and intent of the film maker, and whether we should allow into our minds the "facts" they pretend to present.This film is a great piece of propaganda, whatever you think of the issue itself.I highly recommend it to students of manipulation. Compare to: the Fishead movie.

This is not a film about the science of climate change, second-hand smoke, or risks of flame-retardants. It is about the tactics used (repeatedly) to mislead the public about that science. Most notably, the "merchants of doubt" foster unwarranted images of uncertainty and obscure scientific consensus, and even threaten the scientists themselves (and then joke about it). All the while they hide their sources of funding and conflicts of interest that might lead a reasonable person to measure their claims. The documentary evidence and testimony presented is compelling--including, ironically, the voices of the con-artists themselves (Marc Morano, Fred Singer, Tim Phillips). Especially noteworthy is testimony by those who discovered the deceptions despite prior sympathetic beliefs: Matthew Crawford, Michael Shermer, Congr. Bob Inglis.Striking imagery. Amusing moments. But also chilling when one reflects how these voices obscure harms to our health and environment. Worse, they appeal to the banner of free speech and other "freedoms" (to do harm, in the name of unregulated business, I suppose), and imagine that sheer will or personal belief can trump sound scientific conclusions.Other naysaying reviews one finds of this film will surely be further evidence of what the film itself exposes so well. Once revealed, never again concealed.