This starts an irregular (i.e.: whenever I feel like it) series in which I will be briefly commenting on the especially primitive specimens of the denier fauna.
Now, to be honest, even the crème de la crème of the denier kingdom, the "academic" deniers, are not really far away from the lower branches of the rotten tree in that they will more often than not mangle the sources, proffer trivial and laughable "arguments" and fall victim to the most common logical fallacies. But at the very least they are able to put up a facade of sophistication on their anti-knowledge project, what with their archival references and the sometime use of scientific jargon. Which looks more like posh lipstick on a chihuahua, but hey.
So this series won't be concerned with them, but rather with the lower-tier negationists who more or less fully ignore the "research" of their slightly less devolved colleagues, instead subsisting on whatever radioactive slime and long-ago-expired fast-food-for-thought leftovers they randomly find while aimlessly crawling through the Great Internet Wastes.
