Merchants of Doubt

by

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

The George C. Marshall Institute was the conservative think tank started by Fred Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and William Nierenberg in 1984 and disbanded in 2015.
Get the entire Merchants of Doubt LitChart as a printable PDF.
Merchants of Doubt PDF

George C. Marshall Institute Term Timeline in Merchants of Doubt

The timeline below shows where the term George C. Marshall Institute appears in Merchants of Doubt. The colored dots and icons indicate which themes are associated with that appearance.
Introduction
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
...publicly supported Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative on behalf of a conservative think tank called the George C. Marshall Institute . Both Seitz and Singer also worked for the tobacco industry: Seitz led the R.J.... (full context)
Chapter 1
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
...sure about anything. Frederick Seitz kept using these same strategies for decades, starting with the George C. Marshall Institute . (full context)
Chapter 2
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
...in a nuclear war. To promote such ideas, Jastrow and several other physicists founded the George C. Marshall Institute . They appointed Fred Seitz as its founding chairman. (full context)
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
The George C. Marshall Institute . Robert Jastrow decided to start a new think tank. He wanted to undermine the... (full context)
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
The Marshall Institute started publishing contrarian articles and demanding that journalists include their views in the name of... (full context)
Chapter 3
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
...panel to review these conclusions. As its chair, he chose William Nierenberg—the cofounder of the Marshall Institute , who had never studied acid rain but already served in several prominent positions under... (full context)
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
...worsening at the Hubbard Brook forest, which was shrinking fast. And as of 2007, the George C. Marshall Institute is still calling acid rain a “largely hypothetical” threat that requires more research. Research by... (full context)
Chapter 4
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Capitalism and the Environment Theme Icon
...to overthrow free-market capitalism by spreading lies about environmental threats. Thus, it’s clear why the Marshall Institute began repeating Singer’s claims and pro-business newspapers eagerly published them. (full context)
Chapter 5
Media Bias Theme Icon
...EPA. Oreskes and Conway explain how the Philip Morris tobacco company began secretly funding the George C. Marshall Institute in exchange for press coverage defending secondhand smoke. Through the lobbyist Steven Milloy, Philip Morris... (full context)
Chapter 6
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Blaming the Sun. After his retirement, Bill Nierenberg joined the George C. Marshall Institute . In 1989, the Cold War was ending, so the Institute was pivoting from supporting... (full context)
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
...radiation levels would only have a minor effect, at most, on global temperatures. Yet the George C. Marshall Institute continued blaming the sun and publishing erroneous graphs, even after Bert Bolin and other climate... (full context)
Conclusion
Science, Trust, and Public Policy Theme Icon
Certainty, Doubt, and the Scientific Method Theme Icon
...it wasn’t really scientific at all. And this strategy worked: the White House took the George C. Marshall Institute ’s reports seriously, even though they were never peer-reviewed and full of serious misrepresentations. (full context)