Ten common attacks on mainstream science:

# Claim that mainstream science is akin to a religion/ideology.
#
Claim that there is an establishment (liberal/intellectual/poltitical)
censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent".
# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of primary literature justifies the claim that a controversy exists.
#
Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific terminology (e.g.
theory, hypothesis, etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream
science hasn't "been proven".
# Present claims made outside the
primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in
refereed journals, even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with
clear ideological agendas.
# Present self-contradictory alternatives
to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or
acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.
# Present
admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the
mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc.
as though they are still relevant/make reference to past instances of scientific failure without evidence of how the same could be occurring.
# Attack opinions and/or
statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by
politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this
is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed,
respected journals.
# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty
that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to
give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.
# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.

I'm
trying to come up with something that fits the mold for Creationists,
global warming deniers, 9/11 Truthers, vaccine-autism theorists,
HIV-AIDS deniers, etc.

Thoughts and criticisms are very much appreciated.