''Oreskes is neither a scientist of any sort nor a careful professional historian. She is, however, a "pop-psychologist."

The following article ''Science and Smear Merchants'' by Fred Singer explains why Naomi Oreskes is a scientifically inept and a poor historian. Her famous claim of a scientific consensus based on 900 papers missed more than 11,000 that should have been included. Her grasp of science is so poor she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models can predict forest fires and floods. Embarrassingly, Oreskes doesn’t understand the difference between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen. Armed with cherry picked distortions she sets about maliciously impugning upstanding senior scientists with distinguished records in science, and years of service. Unlike a professional historian she hasn’t even interviewed any of them to find out if the information she promoted was correct.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html

Why label those questioning government Deniers?

We are spending trillions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by climate models that we know don’t work. This $4bn a day industry is the perfect scam, as long as the climate changes, Climate Change is proven. And only ''deniers'' deny climate change! Hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, whatever – it’s all our fault, unless we transfer our wealth and freedom to the global elite.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community, not hypothetical computer models. Claiming the moral high ground believing CO2 is mother nature's thermostat and we can change the climate catastrophically by adding or removing CO2 is a unscientific, pagan, theological quest to control the weather and just another iteration of what Druids and witch doctors have been promising for eons.