What's sad to me is that highly-educated scientists who should know better often casually throw around the very powerful label of "Science Denial" when they're

What's sad to me is that highly-educated scientists who should know better often casually throw around the very powerful label of "Science Denial" when they're actually having a risk-management disagreement with somebody. Normal people can't always articulate the reason for their opinions well, but it's perfectly reasonable and valid to think that certain vaccines may have more disadvantages than advantages, or that the results from trying to combat climate change will do more economic and social damage to humanity than benefits it provides. This is not science denial, this is a risk-management disagreement. Let it be perfectly clear, an objectively correct human action to some perceived problem is NEVER the result of any scientific experiment. Most of what is labelled as science denial is not that. As far as "We never landed on the moon." goes, I even have some sympathy for that belief because known liars should never be completely trusted without verification, and the Feds are the worst liars other than the father of lies.