As I told him yesterday, I was glad to see him frame denial far more broadly than those using «denier» as a label for anyone
rejecting the science pointing to greenhouse - driven dangers.
I find it hard to draw the same conclusion in looking at my coverage, which has long included the voices of researchers challenging the predominant line of thinking on climate science, among them Roger Pielke Sr., Richard Lindzen, who was quoted in the 2006 article you read, John Christy, Ivar Giaever (a Nobelist who
rejects the science pointing to dangerous greenhouse warming) and others.
Not exact matches
In a CNBC interview last Thursday, Pruitt
rejected established
science pointing to carbon dioxide as the main driver of recent global warming.
He also maintains that Western
science is more than simply Western, because it is universal, but this is precisely the claim which conservatives have made a
point of
rejecting: they do not see a tradition so obviously tied to the history of the West as a system of objective, neutral or universal truth.
Many efforts to gauge why most Republicans
reject or doubt the
science pointing to risks from unabated emissions of greenhouse gases are issue - centric.
Of course most scientists don't like the grandiose claims that imply they have been stupid and that's the
point — good
science can be and is
rejected only because it implies that the orthodoxy has been stupid.
While the Type 2 deniers accept (officially) the
science, they
reject the actions required to avoid the end -
point climate disaster, especially the hard demand reduction required at the front end.