We have gone live, as of this morning at the scienceblogs as "denialism blog" at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism.

We'll see you there. It may take a couple days to get the RSS feeds and stuff worked out, but in the meantime we'll be doing an overview of the denialism problem for our new readers.

(also please everybody update links to point at our scienceblogs page rather than here)

Labels: about

Who are the Denialists? We will regularly update this page to include prominent denialists, denialist organizations, and sources of false expertise. While there are too many cranks on the web to accurately track, we believe these sites represent the most prominent or influential ones that have been most effective in spreading disinformation.

Creationism/Intelligent Design Denialists
Uncommon Descent(William Dembski and Others)
Answers in Genesis - Ken Ham's site and blog
Design Inference (William Dembski)
The Discovery Institute (Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, Michael Behe etc.)
Post-Darwinist
CreationEvolutionDesign
ResearchID.com the nexus for researching intelligent design. (Ha! research)
Access Research Network
First Things

Global Warming Denialists
Junk Science - Steven Milloy
The Cato Institute Global warming denialism and general pro-industry propaganda. Denialist Pat Michaels is their Senior fellow in environmental studies
Michael Fumento's Weblog - Global Warming denialist, general crank.
Competitive Enterprise Institute The bottom of the barrel of pro-industry anti global warming denialism and industry apologists, Stephen Milloy is an "adjunct Scholar".
WorldClimateReport Patrick Michaels UVA's global warming denialist and state climatologist (although he's not really).
GlobalWarming.org - Run by CEI
CO2science.org - misinformation campaign suggesting CO2 as a worldwide fertilizer - an idea debunked in Science as it decreases crop yields.
SEPP - Fred Singer's denialist site.
Envirospin - Philip Stott's denialist site.
Richard Lindzen - the MIT prof all the denialists love - especially Cato and WSJ. He doesn't have a major web presence but is a frequent commentator.
Friends of Science - Denialist Tim Ball's "grassroots" anti-kyoto organization.
TCS Daily - mostly global warming crankery - but fairly versatile.
A Full list of organizations from Exxon Secrets - a comprehensive list of global warming denialists.

Anti-regulatory/Industry Apologists/Fake Consumer groups/Astroturf
ConsumerFreedom.com food "choice" astroturfers, pro-trans fat, actually represent food industry
Don't Regulate.org - Anti-net neutrality astroturfers
Hands off the internet - Anti-net neutrality astroturfers
Freedom Works.org - Anti-regulatory business front group.
Progress and Freedom Foundation - progress and freedom means AT&T and other telecoms make progress in killing Net Neutrality.
American Enterprise Institute - pro-industry shills, anti-global warming, generally anti-environmentalist.
Competitive Enterprise Institute The bottom of the barrel of pro-industry anti-global warming denialism and industry apologists, Stephen Milloy is an "adjunct Scholar".
The Cato Institute Global warming denialism and general pro-industry propaganda. Denialist Pat Michaels is their Senior fellow in environmental studies
Reason Magazine Shrill libertarian denialism on a host of topics. Between publishing articles from Pat Michaels and publishing tripe like Hummers are more efficient than the Prius, they qualify.
The Mercatus Center At George Mason - Industry shilling, global warming denialism.
The George C. Marshall institute - Industry shilling, global warming denialism.
The Independent Women's Forum Anti-feminist front group affiliated with CSE and Koch - anti-global warming, anti-environment, anti-sex ed, you name it, they're on the wrong side of it.
Center for Science and Public Policy - Global warming/environmental denialism.
Family Research Institute - junk science from Paul Cameron (here's a good profile of that denialist crank)
Concerned Women for America - junk science on contraception, homosexuality, stem cell research, fake feminism.
Family Research Council - junk science on contraceptives, homosexuality, fake feminism. See Reasoned Audacity, Charmaigne and Jack Yoest's schizophrenically-written blog too.
CNW Marketing - the publishers of the Dust to Dust bogus H2 more efficient than Prius report.
WSJ editorial page Never met a business they wouldn't shill for.

HIV/AIDS Denialism
Duesberg.com - Duesberg's official site
Rethinkingaids.com - Etienne de Harven
Virusmyth.com - not regularly updated
Aliveandwell.org - creepiest of the creepy, Christine Maggiore's, Ali Al-Bayati, Harvey Bialy.
Newaidsreview.org - more regularly updated
The Perth Group - Australian creeps, practice the impossible expectations tactic most, deny Koch postulates were met.
Suppressedaidsscience.net
Roberto Giraldo.com - another major quack
Harper's Magazine - Celia Farber's article and the Rebuttal (PDF)
AIDS Myth Exposed - message board site
Reviewingaids.org - AIDS denialists own wiki site.
Deanesmay.com
Dissident Action group
Lew Rockwell.com - regularly publishes pieces from multiple deniers
HealAids.com
Pharmharm.com
Hank Barnes

Stem Cell Denialism/Adult Stem Cell Hype/Fake Bioethicists/Cloning, Eugenics and Euthanasia Paranoids
SecondHand Smoke (Wesley J. Smith)
The Human Future (Jennifer Lahl)
Center for Bioethics and Culture
First Things - the clearinghouse for articles on religion disguised as bioethics
The Discovery Institute
The New Atlantis - another journal for religion as bioethics
Do No Harm - Anti-ES cell propaganda
Stem Cell research facts - Same BS info, prettier site.

Anti-Vaccination/Mercury Denialism/Chelation Quackery
Robert Kennedy Jr.'s "deadly immunity" at salon.
The Huffington Post while not 100% denialist, it has an entrenched anti-vaccination element including Robert Kennedy Jr.'s BS articles and David Kirby railing against the evil mercury (should we be surprised when they give Deepak Chopra a loudspeaker?)
Toxicteeth.org - inc. Boyd Haley
Boyd Haley's U Kentucky homepage
Planet Chiropractic - fearmongering on vaccines.
Autism Research institute
Lymeinducedautism.com - Lyme disease might get it's own section as it has some very strange advocates of "chronic lyme".
GenerationRescue.org
Health Advocacy in the Public Interest
National Vaccine Information Center

Anti-Vivisection/Anti-testing Denialism
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - interestingly a medical advisor, Richard De Andrea, for PCRM is also an HIV/AIDS denialist at Alive and Well.
PETA - consistently lie about science in advertising campaigns, generally creepy methods.
National Anti-Vivisection Society promote the "you can do it on computers" and "cell culture" canards.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society
Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine
Animal Liberation Front - Terrorists.
SHAC
Jerry Vlasak - public face of the ALF terrorists.

9/11 Conspiracy Cranks
9/11 Blogger - probably the best blogroll.
Loose Change - 9/11 crankery - the movie!
911research.wtc7.net
9/11Truth.org
the Journal of 9/11 studies - Ha!


Alternative Medicine Advocacy/Industry/Woo
Alliance for Natural Health
International Medical Veritas Association - Anti-Vax paranoia, altie-woo, and the related Federation for Safe and Effective Medicine which is apparently convinced real doctors just want to kill people.
World Patient Organization for Natural Health
The National Health Federation - chock full of altie woo, regulatory paranoia, and anti-vax articles
Citizens for Health - president James Gormley has some typical articles on how evidence-based medicine is worthless.
Health Freedom Foundation - more anti-vax nonsense from their blog



Useful links for monitoring fake experts (Note: Many lobby-watchers have their own agenda - this is not an endorsement of these sites)
SourceWatch.org or particular interest their lists of Think Tanks, Industry front groups and industry experts.
Public Citizen
Stealthpacs.org - also from public citizen.
Common Cause
Exxon Secrets
aidstruth.org - tracks HIV denialists

(Updated 4/15/07)

Labels: about

So, I've gotten some criticism over the black on white layout for the site, and will take suggestions on how to pretty it up. Apparently white on black and blue on black text is a particular internet sin I was unaware of.

I could just reverse the colors in the banner and sidebars, or go for something easier on the eye, maybe a nice maroon?

Let me know, we're pretty flexible.

Labels: about

[This is reproduced from an earlier post on my personal blog.]

My newest paper, The Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts, is now available on SSRN (HTML version).

Here's the abstract:

The Denalists' Deck of Cards is a humorous illustration of how libertarian policy groups use "denialism." In this context, denialism is the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration of any type of reform, regardless of the facts. Giveupblog.com has identified five general tactics used by denialists: "conspiracy, selectivity, the fake expert, impossible expectations, and metaphor."

The Denialists' Deck of Cards builds upon this description by providing specific examples of advocacy techniques. The point of listing denialists' arguments in this fashion is to show the rhetorical progression of groups that are not seeking a dialogue but rather an outcome. As such, this taxonomy is extremely cynical, but it is a reflection of and reaction to how poor the public policy debates in Washington have become.

The Deck is drawn upon my experience as a lawyer working on consumer protection in Washington, DC. Where possible, I have provided specific examples of denialism, but in many cases, these arguments are used only in closed negotiations. Some who read them find the examples humorous, while others find it troubling. But all who read the Washington Post will recognize these tactics; they are ubiquitous and quite effective.

This taxonomy provides a roadmap for consumer advocates to understand the resistance they will face with almost any form of consumer reform. I hope to expand it to include retorts to each argument in the future.

Labels: about, deck of cards

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.

We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic. Adapted from Give Up Blog's post with permission.

1. Conspiracy

Suggesting scientists have some ulterior motive for their research or they are part of some conspiracy. The most basic example of this lie is to say that if the scientists discovered contrary findings they would lose their funding. The most severe example is to suggest scientists are engaged in some kind of elaborate "cover-up" or that they are part of the zionist conspiracy against the Aryan race. Whatever, it amounts to the same thing.

Response: These criticisms reflect a total ignorance of how science, especially academic science, works from a practical standpoint. Not only do scientists love to discover things that run contrary to expectations and publish them, but it is precisely the exceptional results that generate a great deal of interest (although they also require a higher degree of skepticism). The papers published in Nature and Science aren't just essays saying "everything is fine." They are often revolutionary (and sometimes incorrect) papers describing unusual findings, powerful new findings, or things that represent a major coup of scientific diligence and work. Funding, while often rewarded to projects that don't take huge risks, is also heavily based on novelty, not maintaining some kind of party line. Further, the idea that scientists would ever work together in uniform to supress some piece of information is laughable. Scientists are in competition with eachother, and if something were being suppressed by a group it is usually only because they want to publish it first, and their competitors would love to beat them to it. Science is quite incompatible with keeping secrets or maintaining conspiracies, and to any actual scientists this is laughable.


2. Selectivity

Denialists will often cite: a critical paper supporting their idea, or famously discredited or flawed papers meant to make the field look like a it's based on weak research. Quote mining is also an example of "selective" argument, by using a statement out of context, just like using papers or data out of context, they are able to sow confusion.

Response: I've noticed this is common among the AIDS/HIV denialists (who have a discredited paper from 1987 they like to wave around and they pick on Gallo for fudging the initial identification of HIV), but also is a big thing among global warming deniars as described in the Guardian article. Some creationists like Jonathan Wells particularly enjoy using examples of failed theories supporting Darwinian evolution (like Haeckels' embryos) to suggest that the tens of thousands of other papers on the subject, and the entire basis of genetics, biology and biochemistry are wrong. The biggest problem here is that science doesn't "purge" the literature when these things are proven false and they stay there forever. It is up to the researcher to read more than the papers that support their foregone conclusion, they have to develop a theory that incorporates all the data, not just the data they like.


3. The fake expert
: A bought-scientist or scientist/expert from an unrelated field to say that their data, lack of data, proven-flawed data or their expert opinion disproves the validity of the entire field.

Response: The global warming denialists have the greatest amount of money invested in the fake-expert strategy but they all pretty much use this tactic to some degree. Note that creationists and other anti-science types particularly will line up behind MDs to support their crap, because a lot of doctors are graduated in this country, and even though they technically have a degree in science, they've never actually done it themselves and it's never to hard to find some quack with an MD to back up your line of bullshit. I would point you, for example, to the Presidential Council on Bioethics which is full of MDs gleaned for their ideological slant, with no real scientific legitimacy (Krauthammer being the most glaring example). I'm not maligning MD researchers who do exist, but it is a strategy used to give a patina of legitimacy to otherwise laughable ideas.


4. Impossible expectations/Moving Goalposts:
The use of the absence of complete and absolute knowledge to prevent implementation of sound policies, or acceptance of an idea or a theory. It's a little bit like argument ad ignorantiam, but more sinister. Basically, the suggestion is made that until a subject is understood completely and totally (usually requiring a level of knowledge only found in deities), no action can be reasonably taken.

Response: This is a big one with global warming deniers. To state the problem metaphorically, it's like saying until you've figured out the exact momentum, moment of inertia, time dilation, length contraction, and relativistic position of a car in several reference frames that is speeding at you, you shouldn't jump out of the way. Since global warming is very complicated, they use this mixed appeal to ignorance and inaction to suggest until we understand climate 100%, we should do nothing. Never mind that this is impossible, but that is the expectation. A reasonable person would instead suggest that once you have enough data that suggest a change of behavior, or change of policy is warranted, it would be prudent to take that data under consideration and change things before we're all under water. You don't need to know the position of every molecule in the galaxy before deciding you need to jump out of the way of a speeding train. Just like we don't need to have a perfect model of the earth's climate to understand that all the current data and simulations suggest decreasing carbon output is of critical importance right now, and not when humans have obtained some imaginary scientific nirvana.


5. The logical fallacy
The fallacies usually used are metaphor/argument from analogy, appeals to consequence, straw men or red herrings. The metaphor, as hopefully I've demonstrated, is a useful tool in language to help communicate ideas in common sense terms. However, it isn't an argument in and of itself. Denialists will often use argument from metaphor or analogy to suggest that scientific data are wrong. For example, creationists will use as an argument the metaphor that saying natural selection leading to humans is like saying it's probable that you could assemble a jumbo-jet that could fly simply by shaking the constituent parts in a box for 5 billion years. Or that a mousetrap is too complex for evolution because if a single part was missing it wouldn't work.

Response: I'm not purposefully setting up a straw man here, but this type of argument from false analogy is incredibly common as are other classic logical fallacies. One could argue many things, but it would be a waste of time because the situations described are silly and have nothing to do with human evolution. The analogies ignore the nature of evolution, suggest it's just totally random, ignore natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, ignore basic biology and create a totally artifical point of reference for a biological discussion. In short, metaphors have nothing to do with biology or evolution, but they are confusing and on the surface their logic sounds correct to many laymen. These are a hallmark of the "irreducible complexity" arguments of the creationist denialists, but other denialists have similar appeals to metaphor. But irreducible complexity arguments are all based on metaphors, while data from siRNA, knockout mice, humans with silent genetic defects, etc., indicate that cells and biological organisms are not irreducibly complex, and often can operate and adapt with less than a full complement of their ideal genetic code. There are quite a few gene knockout mice in which no phenotype has been observed, and anyone who has knocked genes out in cells with siRNA could tell you, an effect is no guarantee. Cells adapt to a number of situations and not all genes are required for healthy, viable offspring. Science is not about who has the best metaphor that makes the most sense to good ol' common folk. Data trumps metaphors every time.

Recognizing these tactics is the first step towards debunking or just outright dismissing these dismal and distracting arguments that detract from legitimate debate and sow confusion about scientific fact.

Labels: about

Who are we?

Mark Hoofnagle is a MD/PhD Candidate in the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics at the University of Virginia. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.

Chris Hoofnagle is an attorney with experience in consumer protection advocacy in Washington and Sacramento. His interest in denialism concerns the use of rhetorical tactics by various industries in thwarting responsible public policy. He is the author of The Denialists' Deck of Cards.

Labels: about