What is Reddit's opinion of The Republican War on Science?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Republican War on Science

You realize that there is a concerted effort by industry to undermine the confidence of the public and legislators in climate change research by three main methods, right?

1. Encourage the belief that there is far greater uncertainty or conflict within the scientific community regarding the current consensus than there really is by a combination of media efforts, think tanks, and influencing key government officials.

2. Raising the bar on what constitutes "reasonable certainty" for climate science (or any other science that threatens industry concerns) beyond the levels that the scientists in the field understand as useful, then labeling anything falls below that bar as "junk science" while calling anything that supports their position (regardless of scientific rigor or peer support) "sound science".

3. Using points 1 and 2 as a lever to allow industry involvement into the regulatory rule-making process to be pushed so far up the chain that industry-friendly experts are allowed to sit on pseudo "peer-review" boards that can suppress or cancel government-funded research that looks to be unhelpful to them before it can even be finished.

The techniques being used right now to block or obfuscate scientific inquiry into climate change are the same ones that were developed & perfected by the tobacco industry in the 70s and 80s in order to combat research that was revealing the health risks of smoking and second-hand smoke. Three steps: create uncertainty, raise burden of proof, apply pressure.

Source: The Republican War on Science, Part 2: "The Business of Science".

These are the same techniques that are also being used by the anti-vaccination movement, Creationists, truthers and birthers, albeit to much less success (they've failed to get the final push through to point 3, mainly due to the fact that they don't have the financial influence).

As for the general public "doing their own research"? Please. I assume you don't mean for them to conduct their own climate modeling/experiments, but to peruse research papers. Of course, you'll have to become a near-expert on climate science (or any other field) in order to vet the validity of the papers, so you'll just wind up with confirmation bias like the antivax & intelligent design supporters.

Finally, there is more than one definition to faith. You can substitute "confidence" for it in my original post.