Climate scientists and IQ researchers are both (largely) correct. Both of the sciences that they represent are hugely important for understanding the future, while both also have tribal ideological detractors on the right and left, respectively. Though this wasn’t always so. For instance, Svante Arrhenius, the man who constructed the world’s first climate model back in the 1890s – the projections it spat out are perfectly tallied with modern models powered by supercomputers – was also a Social Democratic eugenicist who looked forwards to Sweden becoming Tropical Hyperborea. If climate change is a NWO conspiracy, it goes back more than a century.
But the main difference is that only one of those groups have managed to inspire a secular religion (Greenism) that has become politically dominant amongst European yuppies. The other group, at best, has a few political mavericks (mainstream conservatives and even large sections of the Far Right are militantly blank slatist). On worse days, they are pseudoscientists and social outcasts who can barely hold a conference without a pack of SJWs baying for their blood outside.
I have recently been mulling over why things turned out this way.
My answer may surprise you, as my Marxist credentials are hardly stellar. I believe the most parsimonious explanation is class war. Greenism allows middle class to virtue signal, while the economic costs of highly regressive carbon taxes mainly affect rural & blue collar workers. It also appears to demand global solutions. Like it or not, all science and technology comes with “ideological load.” Stirrups promoted feudalism. Climate science promotes globalism.
In contrast, IQ realism promotes meritocracy, and perhaps a generous dose of paternalism towards the genetically less privileged (before you raise that issue: the Nazis were militantly anti-IQ). No surprise, then, that it was the British middle class that drove the campaign against Cyril Burt and (selective) public grammar schools. Even more hilariously, it is the Far Left that is most stringently opposed to IQ research (modern SJWs harass, assault, and deplatform IQists; under Stalin, some were outright executed). In effect, they act as the hirelings of capital. “False consciousness” much? Then again, that would be assuming that Marxists are out to do social good, as opposed to personal status maximization. I am not sure that assumption is justified.
I do think the Right gets this connection, but only on a hazy, subconscious level. They associate climate science with a globalist Green agenda, and many of them react by denying reality as opposed to framing their arguments around it (e.g. immigration will increase global warming; citing the possible benefits of global warming; pointing out that many Green policies, such as their opposition to nuclear power, are going to worsen the climate crisis). This is perhaps not that surprising, since they aren’t that bright. So they rant about Mann’s hockey stick, Al Gore inventing the Internet, and other inanities, marginalizing themselves and allowing the Left to monopolize the agenda. Meanwhile, in the long-term, it is the more intelligent who tend to status maximize most successfully – the son also rises and all that – and the optimal path towards that goal involves promoting neoliberal globalism, which is the system that they can best thrive in. Realism on AGW coupled with blank slatism (or rather, selective blank slatism – we all know what people mean when they ask which area of town has the “best schools”, and can cite many other petty hypocrisies) is the belief space that is best synchronized with status maximization goals.
This is how Bioleninism operates in the 21st century.