lmao, I found this little gem, and I cannot pretend I did not see resmblances to some regulars in their description.


Quote:

Here at denialism blog, we're very interested in what makes people cranks. Not only how one defines crankish behavior, but literally how people develop unreasonable attitudes about the world in the face of evidence to the contrary. Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea". That is some idea they've incorporated into their world view that they will not relinquish for any reason. Common overvalued ideas that are a source of crankery range from bigotry, antisemitism(holocaust deniers), biblical literalism (creationists - especially YEC's), egotism (as it relates to the complete unwillingness to ever be proven wrong) or an indiscriminant obsession with possessing "controversial" or iconoclastic ideas. Some people just love believing in things that no one in their right mind does, out of some obscure idea that it makes them seem smart or different. The OED definition of a crank seems to be a little old-fashioned: 5. colloq. (orig. U.S.). A person with a mental twist; one who is apt to take up eccentric notions or impracticable projects; esp. one who is enthusiastically possessed by a particular crotchet or hobby; an eccentric, a monomaniac. [This is prob. a back-formation from CRANKY, sense 4.] Also attrib. and Comb. The OED etymology suggests it's been in use for about 180 years, but I don't think it was defined well until that Nature quote in 1906 (which very poetically describes the problem) that the definition seems to take shape. Cranks aren't interested in debate, nor do they respond to reason, they'll just blather on about their idiotic pet theory until everyone in the room has fled or opened a vein. Another take on that quote might be that a crank can only be turned one way, which would fit with the mechanical metaphor and suggest they're only ever interested in spouting one line of reasoning.

Quote:

5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

Ringing any bells?

Actually their whole blog is well worth a look, even if you are a confirmed denialist, at least you could get some tips on how to better couch your arguments to be less obvious.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

For the rest of us who get frustrated with seeing denialists constantly chiming in with obsessive ideas and inane arguments, it is very pleasant to see such a thorough deconstruction of their MO.

LOL - he used the same You-tube 911 demonstration that I used in the "New Value of Pi" thread.


A very useful resource. I like the bit about the guy's head exploding. I have often felt like that with a certain absent contributor of (Anglosaxon) epic proportions.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 31^st, 2010 at 5:45pm:

Quote: 5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic. Ringing any bells?

Funnily enough, yes.

conspiracy - sceptics are in the pockets of big oil/coal/mining or otherwise in the grip of demonic forces. No sane and upstanding person can doubt warmerism (or whatever it is called now).

selectivity (cherry-picking) - see various selective embellishments to boost perception of human culpability; always ownplaying or ignoring non-CO2 impact on climate, as if the only controlling elemnt was CO2

fake experts, Gore, Monbiot and the hordes of NGO boosters and fellow travellers infesting media outlets

impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts) - catastrophy in our lifetime, or our children's or their children's; also shifting from global warming to global climate change to global climat variation to climate justice and so forth.

general fallacies of logic - taking the co-oocurence of two things as a causal relationship.

One thing that Gore and Monbiot generally don't do is to 'make stuff up'

However, the climate septics are much more resourceful when it comes to that. All these graphs in multiple shades of pink, copied from real scientific literature with 'minor' embellishments - such as time axes being reversed, or with imaginary data being labelled "IPCC projection"  

No need to actually check their very expensive presentations against actual scientific data. When you have a Classic degree behind you, all kinds of mythologies are possible.  ;D

You are peddling alarm, so the onus is on you, and only you, to prove your case.

If all it takes to unravel your case is to speak well with an English accent then that just shows how weak your case really is.

Ha! Viscount Monckton couldn't unravel his own kilt.

muso wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Ha! Viscount Monckton couldn't unravel his own kilt.

Maybe not his kilt, but certianly a large part of the AGW case.

Soren wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:49pm:

muso wrote on Feb 8th, 2010 at 4:02pm: Ha! Viscount Monckton couldn't unravel his own kilt. Maybe not his kilt, but certianly a large part of the AGW case.

The only thing that Viscount Monckton does is to provide entertainment and line his own pockets. You can't seriously suggest that he has had any bearing on the knowledge base of the science of Climatology?

He's a Classic's Graduate and a journalist, apart from being the 21st Century equivalent of a Court Jester.  

muso wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 11:00am:

Soren wrote on Feb 8th, 2010 at 5:49pm: muso wrote on Feb 8th, 2010 at 4:02pm: Ha! Viscount Monckton couldn't unravel his own kilt. Maybe not his kilt, but certianly a large part of the AGW case. The only thing that Viscount Monckton does is to provide entertainment and line his own pockets. You can't seriously suggest that he has had any bearing on the knowledge base of the science of Climatology?

You speak as if that was not exactly what Pachauri or Gore are doing.