I think Naomi Oreskes is being charitable when she calls denialists "contrarians", but to each their own. Stranger Fruit has her response to the latest nonsense being spread by these liars.
They've tried this before, and it was swatted down rapidly, basically the only way they can show any significant disagreement with the consensus on global warming since 1990 is to lie and dissemble. This time appears no different.
Maybe that's why they're cranks. They just keep cranking out the same nonsense over, and over.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Sandy Szwarc continues to wage her war against the "obesity myth", and has fallen into the classic crank trap of the attack on scientific consensus. It's right up there with attacking peer-review as a sure sign you're about to listen to someone's anti-science propaganda.
She cites this article at…
Luckily they don't make the mistake of actually debating denialists. The feature of last weeks issue, "Age of Denial" is a series of articles by skeptics and one laughable rebuttal, discussing the nature of denialism and tactics to use against it. They do quite a good job covering the basics,…
Orac has brought up the interesting point that debating the homeopaths at U. Conn might not be a good idea.
On a related note, in a post derriding attacks on consensus I was asked by commenters if isn't it incumbent on science to constantly respond to debate; to never let scientific questions be…
I think most skeptical bloggers would agree that one common tactic one sees from denialists is whole-hog cut-and-paste rebuttals without attribution. For instance, on finds when arguing with evolution denialists that they'll just cut-and-paste tired creationist arguments into comment threads.
We…