Talk:A comparative guide to science denial

latest contents
Looks like some fun to be had when you let us mobify these... 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. It's a bit of a formatting nightmare (a three column table within a SBS!), but it's nice and short and readily refutable.  Sterile 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, it's been in the works that long? I'm really quite keen to have a good three-way comparison between creationists, climate change deniers and the tobacco industry - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, it's not for lack of interest; it's more a lack of time. We could move it somewhere.... Šţěŗĭļė 23:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have The Cigarette Century, A wonderful book about the history of the tobacco industry, and Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. There is lots about ID and global warming denialism on the web, too, and the tobacco documents archive is great source.  It's a matter of determining what sections we want and then finding the quotes.  Šţěŗĭļė 01:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Mind if I move this to mainspace now? All it needs is a good title. "Science denial: a comparative chart" good? - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish. There's a lot to be done with it.  Šţěŗĭļė 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to shitty title. Better suggestions should probably just be implemented with a move - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to work on this now that it's in mainspace! Yikes!  Šţěŗĭļė 02:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

These were some web references I was looking at before about this:        Šţěŗĭļė 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Clarence C. Little paper is a gem of denialist literature for tobacco. (It's the only time a tobacco industry spokesperson made it into the peer-reviewed science literature, albeit as an opinion piece.) Šţěŗĭļė 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GMO, and Nukes as well
Lots of "rationalists" are against GMO and Nukes. it might be interesting to show that the anti GMO campaigns are just as filled with this kind of standard?Godot   En live 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, although the article is sorta focused on the "big 3" of denialism: evolution, smoking-lung cancer link and global warming. Maybe its own separate article? steriletalk 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, once i thought about it, i looked... we have, so it's all good. I just think that the UK and France are far more anti nuke, global warming and GO than they are smoking or creationism.  and by the way, just for a small toss in your craw... the anti-smoking jihad actually does it's share of exaggeration of problems with smoking.  I was recently on the MArch of Dimes site, and they are very anti smoking.  SMOKING WHILE PREGNANT IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR BABY.  But when you actually read the studies they are citing, the increase in danger is around 10%, adn what the dangers are include *not death* but low birth weight, 2-3 WEEKS (not months) premature, etc, and a greater chance of clef pallets.  (which only happen to 7000 babies in the US each year).   Stats are an interesting game, you know?  I'm not planning on smoking when i'm preggers, but i do think the amount of fear mongering is a bit higher than the studies support. :-)  I got yelled at here, for that opinion, even after I provided the studies that March of Dimes was using... oh well. heh.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    En live 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The increase is 10%? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get statistics, and i had this fight already. But if you want the articles that are cited by march of dimes, I'll get them for you.  To me, as a non smoker, I did find it rather fear mongering.  I would not smoke if i were pregnant, but there is a difference between saying openly, "why risk anything", and using words that suggest your baby will not likely live, if you smoke.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    En live 16:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that a 10% increase in risk can be even less impressive. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * oh. i didn't understand that article.  I really do feel stupid around maths.  sorry.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    En live 17:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

PR companies
I had been meaning to add something about this but it slipped my mind. Perhaps someone can recall better but wasn't there one PR company who advised the tobacco industry and then used the same tactics for other controversial issues. Now maybe it was Wp:Hill & Knowlton but the WP article doesn't seem to cover what I vaguely recollect. I'll have to check up on sourcewatch.org. Anyway, we should probably have an article on them as well. 16:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of PR cos. off the top of my head, but there are a whole boatload of flacks denying every environmental issue under the sun. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Alexis de Tocqueville Institution? They were notorious whores. They finally tried it on against Linux and the nerds obliterated them - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the de Smokeville Institution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hill and Knowlton was the PR firm that supported the tobacco companies in the 1950s and 1960s when the link was first established. I recently re-read the beginning of The Cigarette Century where they talk about this; I don't remember how far along they were involved. They were the ones who came up with the Tobacco Industry Research Council, which basically did little but cast doubt. There's a lot about AGW PR in Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.  Unfortunately, I'm not near my books right now. steriletalk 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead in gasoline and "amplify the noise" tactic
PZ Myers goes into great detail about this one. Worth adding? - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)