I often wonder what logic (or lack thereof) is underpinning those who make a point to deny science. I'd also add GMOs to your list since there is some FUD surrounding them, although I think there are legitimate issues worthy of skepticism there as well. For skepticism of evolution, I kind of hand wave away as slightly more benign religious mumbo jumbo; it's an important topic for scientists to follow the evidence and get right, but if uneducated people want to believe in creation myths, I find that to be the least socially damaging out of all of them.

Anti-vaccination people, I suspect, generally have a more-than-healthy skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry. To be honest, I don't immediately trust every new prescription drug, I don't think drug companies always have people's long-term health as their foremost concern, and I think there are plenty of conflicts of interest between doctors, drug-makers and regulators, but given a choice between accepting or rejecting modern medicine, vaccinations included, it seems fairly clear to me which is the lesser of two evils. I suspect there is also a latent fear among many people about issues of population control and eugenics, with vaccinations being vehicle for that. I don't know if anyone has seen the TV show Utopia, but it was all about that; if the worst predictions of global warming do come to pass, I suspect that humans, as a species, will need to have that kind of conversation about the carrying capacity of our planet.

Global warming denial, though, I see as being from two groups. Some people deny it out of fear or ignorance; the thought of major coastal cities being rendered uninhabitable, food shortages and famines, ecological collapse, political unrest, revolutions and war, all the consequences certainly are frightening if you think that is what our children will face, and even more frightening if abrupt climate change causes them to occur in the, relatively speaking, near-term. The second group, I see as denying it out of greed or self-preservation; while they may recognize this as happening, they think it in their own best interest to preserve the economic status quo for as long as possible. I think it was from the COP 20 methane talk in Lima where one of the speakers mentioned a carbon bubble; once everyone recognizes what is happening, all the corporations that have massive holdings of carbon-based fuels will collapse in value.

My personal belief is that parts of the US government are quite well aware of what's happening, what the worst-case scenarios could entail and are preparing for it. Much-ado is made about Jade Helm, but I think it's just bet hedging, preparing for a hostile domestic population in the event of water shortages, food shortages or unrest from weather-related events. I also suspect that many domestic surveillance tools are developed and maintained for this purpose as well.

I find "conspiracy theories" surrounding global warming to be quite interesting. First, chemtrails, which is kind of a weird one, I think it's easy to dismiss the thought that planes are spraying this or that, but geoengineering as a possible counter to climate change is something I've heard suggested. It wouldn't seem out of the realm of possibilities for the US military to covertly test geoengineering technology. Secondly, weather control seems to be a popular theory among the more creative theorists; I've seen it suggested that the California drought is because of HAARP, or some other purposeful weather control technology (ignoring the irony that the California drought is the result of anthropogenic activity). I wonder where that kind of FUD comes from, and who aims to benefit from confusion like that.

Lastly, I've seen some denialists point to the fact "global warming" used to be a common term, whereas now, many people use "climate change" to describe the phenomenon, and thus the scientists were wrong that the planet is warming and they're all backtracking. Of course, I always like to point out that language shift came from Frank Luntz, a propagandist employed by the second Bush, who thought "climate change" sounded less threatening than "global warming."