If you could do that, you could really teach the rest of us a lot.

Even sites like RealClimate, which do this fairly well, are still replete with nitwittery postings and people who reply to them and quote them so killfiles aren’t much help.

Really talking about science, asking good questions and seeing answers to them, is a lot of fun, is fascinating, is a community-building exercise, and is a good example to participate in. Make it obvious that there’s a large population of people who either are working scientists, or were all-but-PhDs decades ago and still care about science, and that there are friends to be made in that population.

Just one cockroach can disrupt the whole evening, if someone chases it across the dance floor trying to stomp it.

Eschew.

You’re comparing a frivolous lawsuit that made the plaintiffs look stupid to a reasoned critique that makes those being critiqued look stupid.

‘Apples and oranges’ comparisons don’t work, Chris – even rhetorically.

First-tier science bloggers need to stay above the fray, lest the idiots drag them down to their level and beat them with experience. Instead, refuting these increasingly absurd attacks on established science should be left to the second-tier bloggers. It’s gotten so easy to beat these guys up that we can handle it, leaving the more popular science blogs to focus on science.

This is the tactic Republicans use presently. They have the respectable candidate, who’s above the fray, then they have the Dittohead generals, like Limbaugh, who can make all the outrageous statements they want, which effectively appeals to the average person.

It’s obviously past the point of continuing to treat them with a respectful and academic tone, and science bloggers shouldn’t debase themselves. If you engage them, they take it as if there is something to debate. If you ignore them, they take it as validation of their conspiracy theories.

It’s lose-lose. So leave it to the science fans to take them on. There’s plenty of us out here. It’s fun and empowering, like playing football with eight-year-olds.

Our boycott was heavily criticised, by ID, by the news media, and many of our scientific colleagues, as evidence we were afraid to debate and couldn’t stand up to the other sides arguments.

In the long run, the boycott was a success. The news media quickly tired of 3 days of ID “experts” droning on. There was little debate and no substance. TV crews left early.

On the other side, remember the crackpot earthquake prediction a decade ago for the New Madrid fault in Missouri-Tennessee? Scientists ignored it, as nonsense but the whole region was in panic. Seismologists have sense recognized the need to quickly and decisively respond to similar claims.

So, what’s the answer? It seems each event/issue has it’s own dynamics and they may shift during their lifetime.

Bad news first: When scientists and science supporters *fail* to refute people engaging in willfully truth-ignoring emotional appeals, cherry-picking deception, and outright lies – which is the only accurate way to describe the activities of anthropogenic global warming and evolution denialists – that’s when science supporters are enabling the enemies of science. Lies work very effectively on people who simply don’t know any better, and if no one is even bothering to refute the lies publicly, how can anyone ever come to know better? You are simply wrong on this: These people must be opposed, publicly and vociferously, even at the risk of lazy journalists making a hash of the issues through phony controversy-mongering. There will always be lazy journalists, after all, and controversy will always sell – so the result you fear (controversy-mongering) would seem impossible to avoid, and the cost of your suggested “method” for avoiding that result (letting lies go unanswered) seems ridiculously high.

On the other hand, you are on track when you say that SIMPLY refuting the claims of denialists is not enough. However, the wise response is not to give up and remain silent in the face of lies: Rather, scientists (and other critics) should make absolutely certain that EVERY TIME they refute the denialists, they ALSO point out the fundamental dishonesty of denialist methods and rhetoric. Preferably, they can also point out the ways in which the denialists’ methods and rhetoric exactly duplicate those of some other group of cranks that the audience is less inclined to be sympathetic towards, such as purveyors of harmful quack remedies: Certainly there are many parallels, both in general and in specific historical examples, between snake oil salesmen and the evolution/anthropogenic global warming denialists. Hell, there are genuine parallels between the “arguments” and rhetorical strategies of evolution/AGW denialists and Flat Earthers! Defenders of the Enlightenment and scientific integrity should take pains to point out these parallels at every opportunity.

#1 Because they vote.
#2 Because they run for public office.
#3 Because they influence the media in various ways.
#4 Because they teach their children and want to teach ours.

CM: “If so, it follows that the defenders of climate science ought to be at least as leery of outright engagement with Heartland as the defenders of evolutionary science are when it comes to engaging with Discovery.”

Ludicrous. The after effects of believing in ID pale in comparison to the after effects of ignoring AGW.

If you cannot reasonably prove that deniers will go away if they are ignored, then that experiment is not worth it, because too much is at stake.

Marketing firms have known this for most of the last hundred years. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that was based on empirical data, or a chain of logical statements? Successful ad campaigns are good propaganda, and good propaganda can convince most people to believe something that isn’t true. We need to use it to convince people of something that IS true. It seems like it should be easier.

But first we have to admit that what we are engaged in is not a debate, it is a propaganda war.