You have neither predicted nor explained it - you have never correctly predicted what will be labeled an absurd denial, and your "explanation" required that the denials involved be opposed to the official Party line, whereas examples such as your AGW denial are aligned with it. You confuse withholding of support with denial. The reason you confuse the two is that you are unable to evaluate the truth of media representations in these matters, and your errors of evaluation lead you to denial of physical reality (which you mistake for withholding support). If you were to inform yourself of the physical reality, you would discover that AGW recognizers - not deniers - are the ones getting fired from high school teaching positions, losing grants, refused opportunities, etc, in the US. That is also how it worked for a long time - and may still operate, in some areas - with Darwinian evolution deniers. Those who insisted on recognizing Darwinian theory openly in a school classroom put their jobs at risk. Even at the college level there was risk - at least one college biology department I know of taught classes in "Temporal Phylogenetic Development" to avoid problems. Meanwhile, AGW deniers have been given the highest status jobs and other positions of power and privilege (including authority over government research and agency funding), along with well-paid sinecures in think tanks and dramatically disproportionate access to plum roles in the public eye (such as paid pundit for the New York Times, about the most honored and valuable punditry position in the US, and very well paid - the otherwise mediocre and unenlightening intellectual Bret Stephens has found himself a much better payday than his talents could ever have obtained on their own).