>science deniers This term itself is bunk. Part of science--science being imperfect and reliant on experimentation--is arriving at contradictory results. It is

>science deniers This term itself is bunk. Part of science--science being imperfect and reliant on experimentation--is arriving at contradictory results. It is a natural part of the scientific process and is codified in the scientific method. What is the lesser evil here? Are some scientist so beyond reproach that any incongruent findings are illegal? What if they're right? What if they're wrong but there was no intent to mislead. What if the authority that anoints untouchable scientists is compromised or otherwise acting in bad faith? Nothing good is going to come from giving credence to a ridiculous notion like "science denier."