A moment of clarity

Politics and religion start from a priori assumptions and go from there to their conclusions, methods and so on.  Science starts with observations; this, I think, is why political and religious types often fail to grok science: they're starting on arbitrary foundations and they know that it's really all opinion.  Thus, when they hit a scientific consensus that is unpalatable - such as climate change and the responsibilities and requirements that come from it - they have great difficulty in parsing what to do.  An ecclesiastical-religion viewpoint would find accommodation; a political one would just shout it down or use rhetoric to get around it.  It's only the fundamental, dogmatic, wild-eyes-and-beard religions that are as implacable.

And thus, this accusation of "global warming religion" -- it's nothing of the sort, but the accuser can't think of anything in their plastic worldview that's as immobile.  They've likely never come across something as immovable that is also unpalatable (gravity, after all, never offended anyone).  The only mental model that's available is religion. 

Science always wins, because science is based on facts.  No amount of wishful thinking would make Lysenko's comradely wheat grow.  No amount of snark will stop CO2 absorbing heat.

it makes me wonder if the cognitive dissonance and plain dumb fury that the denialsphere are feeling is similar to what geocentrists felt when Copernicus presented, and Kepler and Galileo later confirmed, that the Earth goes around the Sun.