There are a few things wrong here. First, science denialism has no political affiliation. There are plenty of ideas dear to the political left that make fine examples of science denialism, and these ideas range from the denial of the role of biology on human behavior (just like religionists') to permitting the spread of malaria. Secondly, science relies mostly on inductive and abductive reasoning, and as such, "the unknowns" are not known, and this is why facts can be revised over time. While the components of a model may proven, the logical entailments between them can be lacking. Also, the peer review process may have been at one time what Mr. Box describes, but that is no longer the case, there is a lot of inducement in the current enterprise of science to lead scientists to collude. Lastly, peer review is the collection of opinions, so science is a matter concerning opinion, just like critiques of math proofs asserted to answer difficult mathematical problems.