Denialism Blog

Month: May 2007

  • Al Jazeera's conspiracy-mongering

    Has anyone else seen that Al Jazeera’s mainpage has a section devoted to conspiracy theories? It prominently features 9/11 conspiracy garbage about WTC7 which has been debunked.

    This is something that is neglected about 9/11 conspiracy mongering. When 9/11 denialists like William Rodriguez encourage anti-American sentiments in foreign countries by suggesting Islamic radicals weren’t behind the attacks it doesn’t do anyone any good. I’m not supportive of the US occupation of Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that we should allow the religious radicals that attacked us off the hook. It is possible to be against the Iraq war without suggesting we ignore who actually attacked our country. Sadly, many prominent anti-war activists, including Cindy Sheehan now, are supporting 9/11 truthiness. Religious radicalism should not be given a pass for the murders that occurred in the name of opposing the war, or else we risk never confronting the real obstacles to peace in the world.

    **Update** A clarification. A sharp commenter has pointed out that Al Jazeera magazine should not be confused with the satellite channel Al-Jazeera AlJazeera.net. They are independent companies. I think I’ll go email Jeff Goldberg at Slate about this as well who made the same mistake as I did, not being a regular reader of AlJazeera.

    Aljazeera.com reads like 9/11 conspiracy site, while Aljazeera.net is considered a legitimate journalistic enterprise. Despite this confusion I think the point remains the same. The consequence of blaming 9/11 on Bush does have the effect of giving religious madmen a pass for the attacks.

  • My question for Luskin again

    With nothing of any substance to actually talk about, like bench research, original ideas etc., the evolution denialists continue to harp on Guillermo Gonzalez, the ISU professor who failed to get tenure.

    However, my question for Casey Luskin remains unanswered. They have accused science of a conspiracy (surprise surprise) because we don’t accept ID as science (neither do the courts, anyone with a brain … ). DaveScot, never one interested in consistency, has even suggested they leverage Dover against the tenure decision, because if ID is religion, they can’t discriminate again Gonzalez for his religion!

    I’m happy to see that DaveScot has finally accepted ID for what it actually is, religion, but I’d still like an answer to my original question.

    Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?

    I’ll also forward MarkCC’s question while I’m at it. Would you agree with a proposal to make an evolutionary biologist who didn’t believe in intelligent design a Discovery Institute fellow?

  • Who are the denialists? (Part III)

    Who are the global Warming Denialists?

    A tougher question is, in a discipline as complex as climate science, how do you tell who the legitimate skeptics (those that ignore the reporting at the Independent for instance) are versus who are the denialists?

    Again, it’s simple, because denialism is about tactics. Which global warming critics are the ones alleging conspiracies, cherry-picking data, and incessantly moving the goalposts? Which organizations hire these hacks to denigrate legitimate science?
    (more…)

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 9 of Spades, "Exploit Others' Ignorance"

    i-61c10d3d18751eda938be7df21862623-9s.jpg The 9 of Spades is different than previous confusion tactics. Remember that most legislative staffers handle many different issues, and often are not expert in any one of them. This tactic leverages incomplete information to promote confusion.

    Here, the denialist simply does not offer information, or allows others to hold misconceptions if it benefits the denialist. In technology and consumer protection, this usually occurs where an industry can fix a problem, but does not want to, and so its advocates don’t mention their capabilities or practices.

  • I guess this was inevitable

    “Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine”.

    I’ve just got to say, wow. I read it at first thinking, “hey, this is hysterical satire”, then I read the comments and thought, “wow, these guys are dedicated – this is pure performance art!” Finally, I started going through the archives with a sinking feeling, “holy crap, these guys are for real.”

    I really think they’ve fallen for these cranks line about a fixed earth, and all I’ve got to say now is please, please, please tell everybody about this. If there ever was a better example of the universality of crank thinking, this is it, and of course they would support Brownback before any other candidate.

    I’m sure if one of these guys was in line for tenure at ISU the DI would be screaming their heads off if the university wisely decided not to extend tenure. After all it’s academic freedom! We must teach the controversy over Copernicus!

    Thanks Coturnix!

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 9 of Diamonds, "Poison the Well"

    i-ec1e058ca9d279d7ecc0a595fb9ed74b-9d.jpg You should all be familiar with this tactic–poisoning the well. You know the trick: provide derogatory information about your opponent to undermine her arguments.

    And here’s a great example: In defending Channel One, Jack Abramoff’s lobbyist Dennis Stephens proposed that Peter Ferrara pen an oped that “hammered the ‘anti-technology’ crowd:” “When I talked with Peter this morning, he was planning to draft a press release hammering the “anti technology” crowd per Jeff B’s request and will also be distributing Grovers nice piece on Channel One. A nice balance, a positive piece on the good guys and a hit piece on the bad guys. Sound good?”

    Find this and other illuminating documents on Jack Abramoff here: Senate Finance Committee Minority Report on Jack Abramoff (PDF) (2005).

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: Nit Pick, and Muddy the Waters

    Two more tactics for those of you who want to be an industry lobbyist, or for those who want to recognize their two-bit tactics.

    i-963b322f26df7f5e113263f3a0f65b39-9c.jpg With nit picking, the denialist finds one problem with a fact asserted or the proposal for reform, and then harps on the problem incessantly.

    A variation on the 8 of Clubs (red herring) is “muddying the waters.” This is where the denialist brings forth any information, whether specious or not, to confuse the issues.

    		 i-29fbd51f1867eb8186bf246662c3c7f0-9h.jpg

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 8 of Spades, "Duh!"

    “Duh!” is one of my favorite lobbyist tactics. I’ve seen it used many times.

    i-718334aad1cbe6244e3c870624c6a80d-8s.jpg With “Duh!,” the denalist deliberately misunderstands, misinterprets, or plays dumb when presented with others’ questions or proposals. One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until they’re asked a question they don’t want to answer!

    In the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandal, this exchange between Rep. Eshoo and Fred Adler, a company investigator, is an excellent “duh” moment:

    ESHOO: …If you say no, then I’ll accept your answer.

    ADLER: OK.

    ESHOO: You said no?

    ADLER: No in regard to what?

    ESHOO: Well, you know what, you have to be smart to play dumb. So I think I’ve been pretty direct about my questions. I asked you if rusing has been used. And you asked me to define it. I give it to you, and then…” House Hearing on the Hewlett-Packard Pretexting Scandal, CQ Transcriptions, Sept. 28, 2006.

  • How to write consistently boring scientific literature

    As I sit here, trying to write a paper, I found this article entitled “How to write consistently boring scientific literature” very interesting. (via The Annals of Improbably Research”

    I’m afraid it’s behind a paywall, so I’ll summarize their findings.
    (more…)

  • Anne Coulter is a mole

    There is no other explanation for her eulogy for Falwell entitled, I kid you not, “Jerry Falwell — Say Hello to Ronald Reagan!”

    In her impassioned defense of Falwell’s most egregious statements, from blaming 9/11 on atheists and gays, to accusing Tinky Winky of being a gay recruiter, she proves she’s really a Democratic agent working to undermine the religious right. Here’s a couple of excerpts.

    Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN.

    Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell.

    Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians — who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle — the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”

    First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and “the Reverend” Barry Lynn.

    There have always been gay people — even in the prelapsarian ’50s that Jerry Falwell and I would like to return to, when God protected America from everything but ourselves.

    What Falwell was referring to are the gay activists — the ones who spit the Eucharist on the floor at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, blamed Reagan for AIDS, and keep trying to teach small schoolchildren about “fisting.”

    I just laughed and laughed. Seriously, you’ll love it.