This specific part of the article falls flat for me, and I think its presence makes the article worse: "It doesn’t take much time on a search engine to find exa

This specific part of the article falls flat for me, and I think its presence makes the article worse: "It doesn’t take much time on a search engine to find examples of Popperianism wielded by deniers." If you accept the author's internal logic that groups like e.g. the Clear Energy Alliance are fundamentally acting in bad faith, then it should be abundantly clear that that a group making that sort of denialist argument by definition does not actually care one iota about whatever philosophy is being invoked. Philosophers have a long, time-honored tradition of producing bodies of work with the intent of destabilizing "naive" epistemology. If it wasn't Popper, it'd be Kuhn or Feyeraband or Derrida or Lacan or, or, or, ad infinitum. (Honestly based on my deeply informal and decidedly non-academic use of social media over the past decade, I always found Kuhn's work to be the more popular plaything for people engaging in most forms of science denialism). Fundamentally, consider any case where a person believes that a.) some proposition P about reality holds, like "cigarette smoke causes cancer" and b.) there is a preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of P, and c.) there exist well-funded entities intentionally producing bad-faith/dishonest/equivocal work that either implies the negation of P or that the evidence in favor of P is flawed. If a person accepts (a), (b), and (c), then it seems most reasonable to also accept that the denialists in (c) probably don't genuinely care about things like "intellectual rigor" or "identifying a useful epistemological model for science." The thin philosophical veneer is just a disposable bauble intended to give a sense of academic respectability to bad work.