Julie Kelly makes an interesting point with this question:
"who are the real deniers: those who are reasonably skeptical about climate change or those who give lots of lip service to it while living a lifestyle totally inimical to every tenet of the climate change creed?"
A different but related argument is given by Steve Horwitz:
“It is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial”
This is not that different from what I have argued before. To me this is the fundamental problem of climate change:
Without being able to accurately predict future damages, or discount
them to evaluate them in today's dollars, it's hard to value future
climate related gains that today's sacrifices (driving less or smaller
or hybrid cars, switching from coal fired electricity to natural gas or
solar, changing our diet or other lifestyle changes, lost income or
returns from capital investment etc.) will buy. In other words it's hard
to know to what extent it makes any sense to do anything about climate
Bringing these perspectives together, some of the most ardent proponents of doing something about climate change based on 'science' are in denial about real world workable solutions:
Unfortunately, many of the same people so vocal about adopting policies based on the so called science of climate change (taxes, permits, dietary restrictions, regulations etc.) are also many of the same people that would restrict us (via GMO labeling laws, bans, strict limitations on hormone and antibiotic use, demonization of LFTB via derogatory terms like 'pink slime' etc.) from doing the very things that would have the greatest positive impact on our climate and environment.
So it seems we have some people that want to as Steve says, jump straight from the science to policy and skip over asking the hard questions or making a critical case for it. At the same time they are they are ignoring real world workable solutions, which are in fact based on solid science, if not actually trying to block them. For progressives of this flavor its not about science, its about invoking the name and prestige of science to override other people's choices while being in denial about rigorous evidence to support their position.
Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and Marching for Science
Science + Economics = Sound Policy