Sentences with phrase «tobacco industry scientists»

I remember well when tobacco industry scientists criticized warnings against cigarette smoking as unproven.

Not exact matches

The tobacco industry use to employ lots of scientists and doctors who would gladly express their opinion that cigarettes were not harmful, after all.

It is blatantly clear why scientists employed by the tobacco industry arrive at quite different conclusions on the relation of smoking and cancer than do others.

For decades, the tobacco industry has been criticized for funding biased research and using the credentials of high - profile scientists to boost the companies» public image (Science, 7 January 2005, p. 36).

But pharmacologist Lisa Bero of the University of California, San Francisco, says that her own research on similar rule - making processes for tobacco control found that scientists opposing rules were often funded by industry groups.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

Based on a real - life story of a tobacco - company research scientist (Russell Crowe) and the ramifications of his decision to disclose industry secrets to the American public on an episode of 60 Minutes, it was a moody, intense affair that many critics touted as one of the year's best films; it netted 7 Oscar nominations in the process.Mann was back in the Academy Award hunt two year's later with Ali, a biopic of the beloved boxer Muhammad Ali that focused on both his athletic accomplishments and his political battles.

For example, one would rightly be skeptical of claims by tobacco - industry scientists about the safey of cigarrettes, no matter how many of them there are.

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

These are attacks based on anti-regulatory, so called «free market» ideology, not legitimate scientific debate, using a wide range of dirty tricks: from faked science, attacks on scientists, fake credentials, cherry - picking scientific conclusions: a campaign based on the old tobacco industry mantra: «doubt is our product».

It documents how a small group of scientists with links to industry were able to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and delay effective policy on DDT, tobacco, acid rain and, now, global warming.

Miller was also a founding member scientist of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a now - defunct, tobacco industry - funded public relations front group run by the APCO Worldwide PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Consider in this regard the deeply deceptive recent WSJ op - ed by David B. Rivkin Jr., who writes for the National Review and is a principal attorney in the fossil fuel industry attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency clean power plan, and Andrew M. Grossman, who represents the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an organization with long - established ties to both the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry before it, including its ongoing affiliation with Chris Horner, the very lawyer Alpha was funding to attack climate scientists.

But the entire notion hinges on the insinuation that scientists who had even the most tenuous financial tie to industry donations were corrupted — paid to lie in a manner no different than shill «experts» working for the tobacco industry who said smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second - hand smoke.»

To quash the notion that no valid scientific criticism exists against the idea of man - caused global warming, enviro - activists often say «denier scientists» are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue, insinuating a parallel to expert «shills» who did the same for «big tobacco».

Moreover, by applying the term «denial» (with all its loaded undertones) to sceptical scientists; by referring to them inaccurately as «well funded» by the oil industry; and by likening those who stress the uncertainties of climate science to unprincipled lobbyists for tobacco companies, Lord May enters on the field of personal vilification — not a suitable place for a distinguished former President of the Royal Society.

The wonderful part of this for the industries who run F.U.D. campaigns is that it gives them a legal «out:» When the lawsuits start, they can point out that scientists had been warning people for decades about (tobacco, global warming).

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades - long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists.

There is little doubt that pressure from the tobacco industry affected the course of medical research, if only by consuming massive amounts of scientists» time that could otherwise have been devoted to research (Landman & Glantz, 2009; Proctor, 2011).

However, not all complaints to universities are from querulous individuals: The tobacco industry, specifically Philip Morris, used complaints to scientists» deans or department heads as part of their action plan to discredit researchers who investigated the health risks of smoking (Landman & Glantz, 2009).

Any scientist who takes tobacco industry money and then states (as scientific fact) what that industry wants to hear isn't a credible scientist any longer.

A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.

Conway's account of his collaboration with Oreskes on this «tobacco industry - connected climate scientists» matter doesn't offer a clearer picture of why atmospheric physicist Dr S Fred Singer was seemingly «the most dangerous man on the planet», it begs for deeper investigation of why and how this portrayal of him coalesced in the first place.

Last but not least, there was Frontline's 2007 «Hot Politics» program, in which Ross Gelbspan appeared, followed with an assertion that skeptic climate scientists «attack science» under the same playbook as the old tobacco industry.

Now, see how Harvard History of Science professor Naomi Oreskes» inadvertently elicits that exact response from her audience, via her tale of the events which led her to explore the notion that skeptic climate scientists operate in a manner parallel to what «expert shills» did for the tobacco industry.

What was needed was something for many more to be outraged about... as in contrarian scientists acting the same way the tobacco industry did when it refused to admit cigarette smoking was a problem.

In a 2007 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists described the GMI as a «clearinghouse for global warming contrarians» funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation and employing the same strategy formerly used by the tobacco industry, repeatedly attacking the science behind the theory and insisting that there was actually a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement among sScientists described the GMI as a «clearinghouse for global warming contrarians» funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation and employing the same strategy formerly used by the tobacco industry, repeatedly attacking the science behind the theory and insisting that there was actually a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement among scientistsscientists.

Make no mistake about it, the mantra repeated by enviro - activists everywhere is that there is no doubt about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming, and nobody should bother to listen to skeptic climate scientists because what few skeptics there are were paid industry money to lie, just the same way «shill experts» lied on behalf of «big tobacco» years ago.

The tobacco industry was caught red - handed with a secret memo strategy saying «doubt was their product ``; catch skeptic climate scientists in a similar conspiracy with Big Coal & Oil where the strategy is to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» and you'll have the public so outraged that they will never trust a word those skeptics have to say.

For all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay - for - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industry.

By both outsourcing the misinformation campaign and allowing their scientists to publish research in peer - reviewed journals — where it was available to but largely unseen by the public — the oil companies tried to buffer themselves against the legal liability that took down the tobacco industry.

During questioning from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D - CA), Michaels confirms that he served as a «member scientist» for the tobacco industry front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC).

Pat Michaels was a «member scientist» and «individual supporter» at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation.

They accused the scientists of over-reacting, bias, scare - mondering, and just plain incompetence — and TASSC in particular hid its tobacco industry connections by attacking a wide range of regulate substances - DDT, Alar, breast implants, etc..

Defendants sponsored publicity campaigns using front groups and paid «scientific» mouthpieces — including some of the same scientists that the tobacco industry had used to downplay the risks of cigarettes — to discredit the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and downplay the risks of climate change.