Sure, there are
conspiracy nuts who take information of scientists out of context, but when it comes time for accurate vetting, the people who take your experimental data and procedure out of context don't tend to have the academic strength against it.
Not exact matches
Ran a piece in the Guardian recently where I critiqued the «nice» people
who run the National Prayer Breakfast» and was floored to find myself called an left wing
conspiracy nut, atheist, etc..
It's easy to dismiss those
who disagree with you as
conspiracy theory
nut jobs.
This, of course, drove a ton of beginning indie writers (
who watch every sale) completely
nuts and sent off waves of
conspiracy theories, just as what happened in 2012.
Both the 9/11
conspiracy nuts and the your individual support department are limited subsets of larger groups - people
who have investigated 9/11 and support departments across the nation, respectively.
A cherry pie that serves your argument not at all, but still, a skewing of views that tends to cater to paranoid
conspiracy theorists and those
who think libertarian means, «gubmint = satan» (which view is not hard to empathize with, however it is clearly
nuts).