Tactics and Motivation of Global Warming Denial

[qwnu]

In his book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, Sean B. Carroll devotes a chapter to exploring the politics of science-denial in general and evolution-denial in particular. He enumerates 6 tactics which have been used in different contexts over the past century:

1. Doubt the science
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities
4. Exagerate potential harm [of acceptance]
5. Appeal to personal freedom
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy

Carroll begins by examining the chiropractic profession and its systematic denial of the germ theory of disease in general, and the science of vaccination in particular. [I found this particularly fascinating as I had never been aware of this before - i.e., opposing the Polio vaccine in the 50s and insisting that chiropractic adjustments would both prevent and cure polio.] He then moves on and explores creationism/ID in the context of these tactics.

Now, I am far less familiar with the Global Warming debate than the evolution/ID debate. I saw Gore's movie, and I was under the impression that over the past few years, a scientific consensus had more or less been reached. However, in reading over a couple of the recent GW threads, I was struck that the "deniers" seemed to be treading the exact same tactical path described by Carroll, especially numbers 1, 2, and 3.

Aside from a general discussion of whether (and how) these tactics are embraced by GW deniers, my main question is about the motivation of the deniers (i.e., those resisting the mainstream scientific consensus). Evolution skeptics want you to believe that there is a legitimate (and growing) controversy about the science, while scientists know there is not. GW skeptics seem like they're doing the same thing, but evolution deniers are united almost completely behind a religious motivation. Does #6 apply to GW skeptics, and if so, what is the "key philosophy" or ideology that would be repudiated by acceptance?