That description describes both parties. Each denies inconvenient science and blocks progress. Literally the only reason I know which party you're talking about is because of the context of this thread.

Stupidity transcends parties. I have no dog in your fight, and I would not be voting for democrats if they were politicians where I live.

That said, despite all the new new age stupidity and antivaxx misinformation from some liberals, only one party has a platform that is obviously anti-science.

I wonder what kind of inconvenient science you have in mind that democrats are supposed to ignore.

Biology.

You mean, like evolution, epidemiology, vaccines and stuff?

If you think about the gender thing, this is a social ideology. Biology is irrelevant to which bathroom someone can use.

Tell that to women getting their skull crushed by biological men in female sports.

Biology does not say anything about how we create categories for athletes either... Separating men from women is arbitrary, and we could very well use other criteria (weight, height, or whatever). Choosing to separate genders instead of sexes is a political decision; you are conflating social and scientific issues. Also, citation needed.

> Let me guess, it was the party of inclusiveness, tolerance and understanding who decided that, while it must be those the evil divisive racists who are the deniers?

What the hell are you on about? This is not about inclusiveness or tolerance. You can be an utter arsehole and be a good scientist. You even used to find good scientists voting for conservative politicians, before said politicians embraced ignorance. Now, they shake their head in despair, stuck between intolerant wokeness and complete lunacy.

> Who is worse by the way, the people who don't believe it is a problem, or the people who believe it's the biggest problem facing humanity and yet refuse to do much about it (until those other people who don't believe it's a problem start to do something about it first)?

This is a straw man. There are lots of people trying to do something about it at every level. You would not be so incensed if you did not perceive them as doing something about which you disagree.

> Unless you count fermenting genocide and regime change and wars in the middle east and north africa as "doing something about it".

You sound like you’ve spent way too much time in an echo chamber. The people pushing for better regulations to preserve the environment and limit global warming are by and large not those who were enthusiastic about pouring oil on the fire in the Middle East. Almost the opposite, in fact.

And it’s “fomenting”, not “fermenting”.