Déjà vu

Techniques of the Skeptics

  • Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
  • Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
  • Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.
  • Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don’t publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
  • Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
  • Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
  • Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
  • Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
  • Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
  • Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
  • Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
  • Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

Sounds familiar? You bet. This is a summary of the techniques used by skeptics denialists to mislead and distort the truth in the debate on the CFC-ozone depletion issue by wunderground.

Via Only In It For The Gold.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under global warming

One response to “Déjà vu

  1. Fascinating, thanks for posting this. Presonally I like the “disparage scientists” for playing up predictions in order to get research funding. There’s nothing more ridiculous than suggesting university scientists are in it for the money. Yet somehow that seems to stick.