Hmm. So if someday I find that some scientists make conclusions that don’t follow and these conclusions are used to make harmful policy decisions, I must not point out that certain scientific problems are unsolved or gather other scientists to write petitions, because that would make me match the RW pattern of “denialist”. Also apparently I must not say that correlation isn’t causation, because that’s “minimizing the relevance of statistical data”.
If that’s the only bit that actually matters for identifying “denialists”, then you can delete everything else from the article. Or put many other things in, e.g. “denialists often have two eyes and a nose”.
Hmm. So if someday I find that some scientists make conclusions that don’t follow and these conclusions are used to make harmful policy decisions, I must not point out that certain scientific problems are unsolved or gather other scientists to write petitions, because that would make me match the RW pattern of “denialist”. Also apparently I must not say that correlation isn’t causation, because that’s “minimizing the relevance of statistical data”.
You failed to read the bit with the smoking gun of us knowing who’s paying for the pseudoscience in all three cases.
If that’s the only bit that actually matters for identifying “denialists”, then you can delete everything else from the article. Or put many other things in, e.g. “denialists often have two eyes and a nose”.