Their goal was not to win the debate that cigarettes were safe — they clearly understood they could not — but to muddy the waters enough to head off regulations on their business."

mainstream science to write a report, which ended up saying exactly what you would expect it to say: climate science is too uncertain to justify policies to limit warming. I’m guessing that the goal here is very much like what the tobacco companies did in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

welfare (the so-called “Endangerment Finding”). If successful, this move could unravel virtually every U.S. climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules.

To support this effort, the Department of Energy hand-selected five climate contrarians who dispute

come to expect from professional climate deniers,” Mann, the coauthor of the 2025 book “Science Under Siege,” told Money Trail. “This is of course exactly what we anticipated we would see if Republicans took hold of the federal government.”'

If we would not submit to an emperor we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity. — Senator John Sherman, 1890, arguing for the passage of the Sherman Act"