On the question of whether conservatives are more likely to take anti-science positions - there aren’t actually all that many science issues that have been documented to be politically polarized (I can think of global warming, evolution, nuclear power, fracking… not much else). These aren't very significant numbers for anyone who wants to argue that conservative anti-science positions outnumber the liberal ones, although of course as a nation we do spend a lot more time talking about GW+evolution than we do nuclear+fracking.
However, there is something to what Werecow says: "After all, the conservative mindset is one of resistance against change, whereas science is inherently progressive...." Yes, there are several studies demonstrating that the tendency to be protective of the status quo - which strongly correlates with conservative ideology - correlates with being skeptical of man-made climate change.
Also, as one of the TAM speakers pointed out (Donald Prothero, maybe?), the Republican party is the one taking major anti-science positions on the federal level. Democrats aren't.
I think it’s safe to say that ideology is not the only driver for these beliefs, but it’s a big one and important to understand. I don’t buy Mooney’s claim that “It’s a fun game to play, this correlating — but it lends itself more to partisan finger pointing than deeper explanations.” In fact, there’s good evidence that this polarization of scientific issues is often preventable, and science communication researchers are right to investigate and seek to establish best practices (which communication professionals can then test).
Zerowantuthri - I think in discussing these matters it’s helpful to disaggregate science “denial” from disagreement that science should be used in policy decisions, or being against federal science funding. In fact, I would like to see the skeptic movement seriously question its use of the term “science denial.” The psychological literature shows that this is not an accurate descriptor of people’s motivations or beliefs. Those who doubt man-made climate change, for example, are not saying they don’t care what the science is - they would say that they think the case for AGW isn’t proven (among other arguments). You can certainly argue that they are not using best skeptical/scientific principles in how they weight the evidence, but the term “science denial” is both inaccurate and likely to cement the distrust between sides of the argument, further inhibiting meaningful discussion.