Let’s look at what happened with tobacco and cigarette smoking. Firstly, it was promoted enthusiastically by the tobacco industry. Typically, only church groups protested against it at first (yes, what can you expect from those wowsers). The Biblical concept of our bodies as temples which should be free from pollution helped convince Christians of earlier centuries that there was something fundamentally wrong with filling your lungs with smoke and your mouth with soot. You’d think this was common sense, but apparently not. Christians were opposing the use of tobacco as early as the sixteenth century.
It wasn’t until around the early 20th century that the first science based objections to smoking arose. The industry responded vigorously in its own favour, and the ‘controversy’ commenced. The industry tried denying the medical claims, and even claimed smoking was health promoting. Later it was unable to support these claims, and had to simply deny the harmful effects of smoking. Then the industry realised it had to focus on ‘the controversy’, the fact that it could always find someone who contested the anti-smoking case on some apparently scientific or medical grounds. It was argued that the data wasn’t complete, the science was misunderstood, the studies weren’t broad enough, or long enough, there were competing theories suggesting alternative explanations for the harm associated with smoking. Anything to convince the public that there was a genuine ‘controversy’.
And that’s what was pushed for the next 60 years, ‘the controversy’. This was manufactured doubt. Unbeknown to the public, the ‘controversy’ was typically the product of industry shills, scientists and doctors in the pay of the tobacco industry, which poured literally millions of dollars into research attempting to find a credible alternative explanation for the data. The tobacco industry CEOs affirmed in public, under oath, that they believed nicotine was not addictive. Unfortunately however, their own scientists and studies had consistently discovered the opposite.
In fact tobacco industry scientific studies were literally decades ahead of government sponsored medical and scientific research into tobacco. The tobacco industry knew that nicotine was addictive over 10 years before anyone else did, and they kept this information secret. They were at the cutting edge of knowledge of the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. They were the first to confirm beyond doubt that nicotine was a carcinogenic and that cigarette smoking was a serious cancer risk. They were the first to discover the highly complex chemical reasons for nicotine addiction. They were the first to detail the pharmacological and neurological impact of tobacco on the human body. All the research they did in secret to try and discover an alternative explanation behind which they could hide, only came repeatedly to the same conclusion.
The following are excerpts from private industry documents. Remember that publicly the industry was saying the exact opposite to what you read here:
-
1962: ‘We now possess a knowledge of the effects of nicotine far more extensive than exists in published scientific literature. . . for good reasons the results of Battelle’s work have been kept at a high level of secrecy’
-
1963: ‘Moreover, nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms’
-
1969: ‘We have, then, as our first premise, that the primary motivation for smoking is to obtain the pharmacological effect of nicotine’
-
1972: ‘In a sense, the tobacco industry may be thought of as being a specialized, highly ritualized, and stylized segment of the pharmaceutical industry. Tobacco products uniquely contain and deliver nicotine, a potent drug with a variety of physiological effects’
-
1976: ‘The rush of nicotine into the blood stream and nervous system is short-lived; therefore, reducing consumption would cause withdrawal and all of its unpleasant side effects so long as the smoker is restricted from smoking. Nicotine vacates the system in 30 minutes or so and at that time withdrawal starts’
-
1978: ‘Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e. its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison’
-
1982: ‘Let’s face facts: Cigarette smoke is biologically active. Nicotine is a potent pharmacological agent. Every toxicologist, physiologist, medical doctor and most chemists know that. It’s not a secret’
-
1985: ‘The view has been elaborated that nicotine is the primary reinforcer of continued smoking, and that this reinforcement value is in large part due to the functional contribution that the arousal modifying properties of nicotine makes to the negotiation of everyday life (coping)’
All this time the tobacco industry was vigorously ‘selling the controversy’, arguing that the testimony of certain specialists, scientists, and medical professionals in defense of tobacco and cigarette smoking was clear evidence that at best ‘the jury is still out’, that the case was undecided, that the science wasn’t certain, the studies weren’t reliable, that the scientific community itself was still in doubt. This was a lie, plain and simple. Not only did they know for a fact that they were lying, but they also knew that the only ‘controversy’ was being produced by their own hired hands, the ‘researchers’ they had given thousands of dollars to come up with papers and documents which would give the false appearance that the scientific question was as yet unsettled.
Exactly the same tactic is being used by the ‘fossil fuels’ industry to try and ‘sell the controversy’ with regard to anthropogenic climate change. The tactics are identical.