They would select certain loaded questions that would cause a lot of doubt. Some examples would be, “Why do cancer rates vary greatly between cities even when smoking rates are similar? Do other environmental changes, such as increased air pollution, correlate with lung cancer?” They had many more, and it’s not that these weren’t relevant questions, they just were already answered, and the answers did not even help them. Scientists already knew the answers to these questions and could be explained easily, but the public did not know this so this caused even more doubt into their …show more content…
Their main focus on who to blame is obviously the small organizations who distribute the misleading facts to the public. They hand out claims that ignore key evidence just for their benefit, and since they are telling people who are not experts nor have experience in the field, they believe these people. The only way these skeptics keep the arguments alive is bringing up old evidence that has already been disproven decades ago or contrary evidence to the mainstream of