For years, the mantra of every bizarre campaign to discredit scientific thought and rationalism has been to "teach the controversy" - to hammer away at any tiny fissure of contention attached to a theory or policy and keep going until you have brought down the entire building.
The phrase was first driven into the mainstream by Seattle-based Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, which appropriated the term for its campaign to discredit evolution by presenting it as a theory that was still open to debate.
It is an ingenious and in many ways successful approach.
Avoiding the need to prove or disprove anything, hardly the strongest suit of creationists, you instead ask people to make a far smaller intellectual leap and believe that there is a degree of doubt surrounding the conventional wisdom. Establish that doubt, even if it is based on blatant falsehoods or outdated data, and the rational position becomes massively weakened and easy to paint as the preserve of arrogant elitists guilty of attempting to crush any dissent.
The audience is then softened up and more willing to investigate an entirely reasonable alternative, which in the case of the Discovery Institute happened to be intelligent design.
It is hardly surprising that the "teaching the controversy" tactic has become a central component of all the anti-science campaigns that blight our culture, featuring in everything from the reports linking the MRI jab with autism to almost every argument put forward by our old friends the climate change sceptics.
And now it looks set to be adopted by a new alliance of anti wind farm groups that was launched earlier today with the express intention of further mobilising opposition to wind farm developments.
Speaking to the group's Chair Jon McLeod, himself an experienced lobbyist employed by one of the UK's largest PR firms, I was struck by how he repeatedly stressed the idea that there is a "debate" surrounding wind energy and renewables policy.
For example, he argued that there were doubts over whether wind farms even lead to reductions in carbon emissions given that fossil fuels are still required to provide a base power load.
No matter that there are no such doubts amongst the government, energy industry or grid operators, nor that the vast majority of research suggests an increase in wind energy capacity will allow the UK to significantly reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The National Alliance of Wind Farm Action Groups (NAWAG) knows that peddling the myth that there are doubts over wind energy's effectiveness will make it far easier to oppose new developments.
The next stage of the "teach the controversy" playbook is to present the opponent as some kind of uncaring elite, something McLeod does effectively by arguing that wind farm developers are guilty of bullying local communities by repeatedly lodging planning applications for new developments until they are successful.
What he failed to mention is that this apparently controversial practice is also adopted by opponents to wind farms who are equally guilty of attempting to "wear down" developers by appealing planning decisions at every turn.
McLeod then completed the three pronged attack, by offering the entirely reasonable alternative to the current conventional wisdom, namely a "more balanced" support mechanism for renewables. This is a clever approach as who can oppose a call for "balance"?
But again, NAWAG's position is based on misleading information. Onshore wind farms already receive the same or lower levels of financial support through the government's Renewables Obligation mechanism than other forms of renewable energy. The reason they are popular with developers is not because they receive the most generous level of financial incentives as McLeod suggests (in fact the opposite is true, they receive less support than marine energy and offshore wind farms), but because they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy currently available.
The most frustrating aspect of this three-pronged "teach the controversy" model is that it is maddeningly effective, and in McLeod the new lobby group has a canny and experienced PR operator pulling the strings.
Given the success small scale local opposition groups have already had at delaying and blocking wind farm developments, the emergence of an organised national body with a clear and coherent PR strategy should be a cause of considerable concern for the wind energy industry. It urgently needs to get the facts surrounding wind energy across loud and clear, not to mention quickly, if it is to torpedo the myths touted by this newly formed anti-wind alliance.
Asda's George clothing label to only use polyester from recycled materials by 2025, as Tesco launches plastic-free veg trial and Pret rolls our water refill points
The news Ineos has lobbied against EU pollution rules provides a further reminder of the huge environmental risks inherent to a 'no deal' Brexit
Draft bill would give government powers to regulate CO2 and create carbon markets, but faces stiff opposition inside and outside Moscow administration
Shell-owned utility promises to announce a "string of exciting services" in the coming months, as it seeks to burnish green credentials