I don't disagree, but I find your view to be incomplete.<quoted text>
In the arena of global warming, the topic of discussion here, there is no doubt that the RW denounces the science much more than the liberals. If you doubt this, you have not been paying attention.
The vested interests I was referring to here are those that have monetary considerations.
Let me explain why I believe this - bear with me.
Science - more accurately for purposes of this discussion, logical positivism - is not the sole source of human truth and knowledge. Epistemologically, there are other sources of truth and knowledge that all have validity.
If by "the arena of global warming," you are merely referring to academic discussion within the scientific community as to what is known about the past and present behavior of Earth's global climate system, causal mechanisms, hypothetical predictions of future climate, and testing of those hypotheses, certainly the heavy weight you place upon logical empiricism is perfectly appropriate.(I anticipate the tediously well-worn response that there is no debate, the science is aettled yadda yadda ... sure - whatev. I happily concede the point for the purposes of discussion). If it is this "arena of global warming" to which your refer, it's puzzling why the scientific community, confident in their scientific knowledge, would even care about converting ignorant 'nonbelievers.'
So I must presume that by "the arena of global warming," you are referring to the wholly different discussion of what society's _response_ should be to this scientific knowledge, in particular the legitimacy of compelling certain changes in free individual or collective societal choices and economic behaviors by force of government authority. If so, one errs by not acknowledging that this is a POLITICAL debate, not a scientific one. In the political arena, logical empiricist arguments (i.e., what you refer to as "the science") are not automatically due any greater weight or validity than those grounded in other epistemological schools, or rhetoric.
Moreover, in this political arena, one errs by supposing that the only "vested interests" that have weight in the debate are monetary in nature.
To return to the particular case of The Great AGW Debate, while there's no denying that AGW is BIG BUSINESS for BOTH sides, there are also many, many voices on BOTH sides who have strong vested interests in the matter that are principally moral, ethical, ideological, or even metaphysical in nature.
Yes, the eeeevul and ignorant Reichwing Teabagger Deniers certainly do downplay, deny, ridicule, and otherwise cast doubt on the scientific knowledge that doesn't support their arguments. Just as the AGW Jihadis downplay, deny, ridicule, and otherwise cast doubt on the frankly poor understanding and knowledge of ALL the costs and consequences - both intended and unintended - of the policy actions for which they are so strenuously militating.
Bottom line - it is difficult to win an argument when your opponent is unencumbered with a knowledge of the facts. If real change action is the goal, the warmist side needs to get over themselves and make more persuasive arguments for societal change than simply whining about "the science." Being right on the science is helpful, but not sufficient or even most important to carrying the day politically.