War on Science? I think that is hyperbole. I do believe mainstream conservatives are biased against science and more general about education. The simplistic "reason" that I keep telling myself if that conservative by definition mean against change and science is the pursuit if new ideas and technology, therefore, change.
The answer is probably (likely) way more complicated than that. But yes there is a "mini" war (avoid hyperbole!) on science and more particularly education in this country. Don't tell me there are no victims in this "war" the victims are us (and by us, i mean all of humanity, including our children). Who are the ones that will suffer from a planet whose climate is completely out of whack? Who benefits from all the technologies that scientific enterprises such as Apollo missions yielded (such as new materials, lasers, satellites, propulsion technology, etc etc etc)? The list goes on.
The activities of those we think of as right wing don't change the fact there is no viable alternative to hydrocarbon energy. Not quite yet, anyway. Unless, Lexington, you have the solution to replacing hydrocarbons and you've been holding out on us. If not, my statement stands.
Who told you there is no viable alternative? As of 2016 81% of the energy of this country is from hydrocarbons such as petroleum, gas and coal. That means that 19% comes from other sources (half of that is nuclear and other half is the renewable energy). This is a small percentage but it is not an insignificant portion. The technologies do exist to have alternatives. Yes obviously we cannot change in this right instant moment away from hydrocarbons because we would be 1/5th of what we would need short. Price is not the reason why the alternatives don't have a bigger share either, in fact if you factor in the trillions of dollars spent in all these wars in the last 30 years for what essentially comes down to OIL, probably hydrocarbons end up being the most expensive of the bunch. But the biggest obstacle is not the lack of alternatives but the lack of willingness to even consider it. And in this topic both right and left got it wrong. I am sure there are a lot of lefties that would want to cover the planet on solar panels and wind mills but those are not without their own disadvantages as well for the environment. And this is one of the areas were this "war" on science is also evident. Why is it that what could become the first fusion nuclear plant is not being pioneered, engineered, and built in the most powerful country on earth and it is instead build in france? why is it that the large hadron collider was built in Switzerland when in fact scientist wanted to build an even larger here in america?
The reality is that we will likely eventually accept global warming as a fact, perhaps 4 years down the line or perhaps 10, or perhaps more. But it will eventually be common, accepted, indisputable knowledge. Just the same way that at some point nobody believed "wack" science that said that lead in our gas was a bad idea, that CFCs in our sprays was a bad idea, that dumping tons and tons and tons of fertilizers and chemical problems was a bad idea, acid rain, ozone layers, smoking. All of these and more were seen at their time as fake and today it is uncommon to find people that disputes the veracity and importance of any of those issues. In the same way in 10-15, 20 years people will KNOW for a fact that global warming is/was real. And I personally think we will be able to deal with it, with technology, science and handwork we might even find ways to slow/reverse it. But I bet it will be a lot more expensive than if we start today and we will look a lot dumber to the future generations for not doing so.