In science, we go with a consensus from a system that has educational standards, professional institutions, peer-reviewed research and other safeguards. Still, this system of consensus has been known to be wrong occasionally, and I am certain it will be wrong again.

We can all think of several instances when the scientific consensus has been resisted by otherwise respected, even brilliant, practitioners in the field. Halton Arp and Fred Hoyle in my own field of astronomy come to mind. Controversy and disagreement is essential to science–and not all of these have occurred in the distant past.

By “denialist” I mean not just holding an opinion that conflicts with current orthodoxy, but to pursue that opinion because of purely philosophical or ideological or self-interest grounds. Creationists don’t just question the evidence for evolution, they do so because it conflicts with their religious views. AGW denialists don’t just reject the consensus of evidence and its interpretation, they do so for political and economic reasons. With these denialists, its all about conspiracy theories and supposed attacks on their religious or political or economic opinions.

I’ve always suspected that there is some other mechanism at work in evolution besides natural selection, that natural selection alone cannot explain the exquisite adaptation of organisms to their environment. I can’t prove this, but my intuition screams it at me continuously. I just can’t shake it, I just don’t have the training or evidence to convince anyone else. But I do not attack Darwinism because it threatens my religion. Likewise, I can hypothesize that perhaps we are all mistaken about the nature of global warming, maybe we have gotten it wrong, either its existence, causes or eventual result. It’s not very likely, but its not inconceivable. But I don’t expect anyone to adopt that position simply because it threatens their opinions on economic policy–or their economic interest.

What leads me to believe that is what’s going on with both creationism and AGW denialism is that the resistance is layered, its a defense-in-depth phenomenon with carefully prepared fallback positions which they can retreat to as the evidence and public opinion turns against them. These people aren’t debating the science, they have selfish reasons for not wanting anyone else to believe it. And both of these anti-science positions are highly correlated with Conservative political thinking. You don’t find a lot of atheists against Darwinism. And the opposition to AGW is mostly limited to the American Right.

The climate denialists first tell us there is no warming.

Then they claim its warming but just as part of some short term natural cycle. It will go away if we ignore it.

Then they concede its real, but not the human causes of it.

Then they claim its real and potentially severe, but we will adjust to it.

Then they tell us it is long term and severe, but due to natural causes over which we have no control.

Then they tell us we can do something about it, but its a waste of time because the Chinese will never go along with our plans and they will cheat.

And so on. They simply keep on bringing up objections to any actions which will affect them economically. They are not having a scientific debate, they are having a political one; they are protecting their economic interests. And when you point that out, they come up with all sorts of black helicopter, United Nations, Commie conspiracies and (my favorite) that it is a plot by climate scientists to get more grant money.

There is a satellite in a warehouse in Texas that could be launched right now to help resolve this issue once and for all, and Right wing Republicans in Congress have made sure it will not be deployed because they are afraid of what they and others might learn from it. They are terrified it might make their taxes go up, or regulate their industries more, and cast doubt on their political philosphy. This is an obscenity, and they, and all those who support them, are criminals.

As denial becomes increasingly impossible, will denialists move to the Dyson camp? “Eat your climate change, boy. It’s good for you.”

Edit: ok, ok! Increasingly difficult, then. “Increasingly impossible” is like “somewhat pregnant.”

It has been built, but is in storage because the GOP sure as hell doesn’t want more data on this….

Two years ago in Feb. 2014 the plan was to launch F20 in 2020…

But then there were the midterm elections…

And so, after refusing to fund its launch, they then attacked the Air Force for building it and not launching it:

“We could have saved the Air Force and the Congress a lot of aggravation if we had 18 years ago put a half a billion dollars in a parking lot in a pile and just burned it,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, held to discuss military acquisition reform.

…
“We spent $500 million that could have been used to support national security. Instead, it’s going in the trash. I presume it’s going to be made into razor blades,” Rogers said of the satellite.

A bit of background on Rogers:

Rogers has pulled in more than $400,000 from the Energy and Natural Resources sector during his 9 years in federal office, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This includes $190,000 from electric utilities and another $115,000 from the oil and gas industry. His single largest contributor was energy giant Southern Co., which has given Rogers more than $140,000 over the course of his political career.

Rogers also has a history of voting in favor of energy companies: He has supported increased offshore oil drilling; he voted against allowing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions; and he voted against the offshore oil drilling moratorium.

While Rogers’ idea of doing away with the EPA hinges on the Republican Party sweeping the 2012 elections, his recent statements are just the latest in a long line of Republican-led attacks on the EPA. In the midst of the debt ceiling debacle currently gripping Washington, D.C., the EPA has taken a severe hit by receiving an 18% cut in their funding. Additionally, House Republicans are actively working to make sure the EPA does not have the authority or the money to rule on issues like coal ash toxicity, mercury, and various air pollutants.