   Sounds a little bit like what I wrote in 2007 when I pointed
out denialists should not even be debated:  The goal instead
must be to enforce standards of scientific debate, to delimit
sharply what kind of evidence and argument is worthy of being
listened to, to educate people about the form of
pseudoscientific arguments, and when these arguments are
proffered, to refuse to engage on the grounds they aren’t even
worthy of consideration.  Don’t mistake denialism for debate…
The whole goal of denialists is to create the appearance of a
legitimate debate when there is in fact no legitimate scientific
debate to be had. What is the point of arguing with someone who
denies the moon landing? Or evolution? Or that HIV causes AIDS?
Or the holocaust? They get real angry when you mention that one
as they feel it creates a moral equivalence between the types of
denial. But the operative word is “denial” which is totally
unrelated to whatever specific topic one denies. It’s just
another helpful distracting strategy, to