@maxdancona,
If the only people in the 2% or 3% who disagree with the "consensus" are uneducated amateurs, frauds or kooks, you have a point. If, on the other hand, they have gone through the same rigorous education and training as the majority who are in agreement, than your point falls apart.
It is dangerous, I think, for a society to accept that there are some very important topics that they can't possible understand and therefore they should just accept what the experts who can understand them are telling them.
Virtually every field has a level of complexity and specific knowledge requirements that prevent people outside of that field from fully understanding. Are you suggesting that once a consensus opinion is formed by the "experts" in these fields, that those of us who are not expert should accept their conclusions and move on?
We've already established that "science denial" means something different to a lot of people, so pronouncements on what it really is and what we are really talking about are not likely to be of a whole lot of value.
From what I have observed, far more people "deny" specific conclusions drawn by "scientists" than they do the legitimacy of the scientific method or institutions of science. Generally the conclusions they "deny" are intimately linked with government policy and political agendas that can't be described as representing "science."
Most people who don't accept evolution don't really give a damn whether you or I do. Some, who actually care about us, may see our acceptance as some sign that we have not been saved, but I certainly haven't run across many of these people in person or otherwise. Have you? What they care most about is what is being taught to children in schools. There really is no other societal application of the theory of evolution. Since it may be considered the primary operating principle of life it's all around us and figures, in some way, in everything we do and think, but we don't have foreign or economic policies explicitly based on the what we know (or think we know) about evolution that can be challenged by people who don't accept the theory. I'm not a big fan of teaching children nonsense (guess what though? It happens every day and sometimes in science classes as illustrated by my 10th Grade Chemistry class and Mr. Kowalski's admission that everything he was teaching us about atomic structure was considered to be nonsense by
real scientists) and I would strenuously resist any effort to not teach children evolution, but while I understand why some people strenuously resist teaching children
alternative creation theories that can't stand up to scientific scrutiny I have found that has I've aged, I've become less of an absolutist in many things (I know, hard to believe) and I really don't have a problem with a biology teacher spending maybe an hour of a semester telling her students that some people believe in creationism that says
so and so (I don't even know what they contend) although very few scientists accept these ideas. It could even be used to discuss the scientific method providing it was not done in a way that ridiculed people who believed in creationism. Given that kids are taught crap all of the time and this topic can be a serious source of community tension in some places, I don't think some meager compromise is unjustifiable or is likely to result in our public schools turning out ignorant morons. It's important for kids to realize that not everyone agrees on everything and that disagreement with a norm is not necessarily a bad thing and, in any case, should be tolerated by society.
Climate change is something entirely different. As the zealots are prepared to tell us everyday, climate change is having an influence on virtually everything in our lives from the economy to Islamist terrorism. Policies that are based in part on certain beliefs about climate change can and likely will have a significant impact on the lives of individuals. It doesn't seem wise then for the citizenry to simply say "This is too complex for us to understand so we should just trust what is represented as the consensus view"
People who reject the consensus may be seen as "denying" that particular conclusion of a majority of scientists, but it's a huge stretch to suggest they deny science or the scientific method. People who question the consensus are not denying anything other than the matter is 100% settled, and people who reject or question policy proposals for dealing with climate change shouldn't even be considered in this discussion (but of course they are).
The number of individuals who believe all of the conclusions are actually true but are denying them for monetary or political gain deserve the scorn they attract, but they are relatively very few and in any case, unless they provided a confession, how does anyone know what they actually believe. One would think that with so many experts, political leaders and everyday people buying into climate change orthodoxy these saboteurs, if you will, would be a minimal threat to the movement. If everyone doesn't accept all of the conclusions, it's not because a relative handful of professional deniers have been so amazing effective with their disinformation campaign.
What is undeniable is that climate change has been politicized and whether they are systemic or exceptional there have been occasions when scientists were caught fudging the data to support a particular conclusion. In light of these two things alone, I'm really amazed that anyone thinks that questioning conclusions and proposals is irrational.
In addition, despite the scorn and vitriol zealots send in their direction there are legitimate scientists who also question some of the conclusions, and they are not all kooks or frauds posting YouTube videos online. They have undergone the same rigorous training and education as the consensus scientists. That there is a minority opinion about some of the consensus conclusions certainly isn't proof that those conclusions are erroneous, but it does mean that a layman's questioning the conclusions is not irrational.
