In order to make an effective argument you need to sympathize with and understand the positions of your opponents. You should be able to produce an honest, exce

In order to make an effective argument you need to sympathize with and understand the positions of your opponents. You should be able to produce an honest, excellent argument in support of the opposing position before you should expect your opposition to believe you are discussing in good faith. That's what I'm attempting to do. Saying "You are wrong you hate science science is correct" and ending your argument is satisfying but it is a horribly ineffective rhetorical strategy, and worse doesn't respect the intelligence of the person you're discussing with. If you don't respect them and try to understand their perspective, why should they respect or listen to you? Remember, their vote counts as much as yours. Probably more, since likely they live in a smaller state than you. You claim these 3 organizations are paragons of objective fact and science and they have no political agenda and motives at all other than where the science happens to lead. And yet we all know this is not true: they are organizations of (almost entirely liberal) human beings who I believe try to do their best to be objective in their work. Plenty of people don't think they are objective or that they don't even try and that's not an objection you can dismiss out of hand without argument. A quick google search turned up this example (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-c...) of someone who thinks the CDC (not one of your examples but close) was for some time taking part in explicitly political anti-gun advocacy (taking the political position first, then finding the science to back it up later). He thinks that is the case because there is a quote from the relevant section head of the CDC saying literally exactly that. A lot of these positions are also moral/value judgments intertwined with science. Environmental impact analysis is scientific. Suggesting there is some imperative to do something about the results is a value judgment, which is (arguably) not in the purview of the EPA. Voters and their representatives (i.e. Republicans) are the ones who get to decide whether these environmental protections are something we as a country want to put into place or if they are worth the loss in industrial efficiency. Voters and their representatives get to decide if it's morally acceptable for the government to assist and advocate for birth control, abortion, sexual health, etc. It doesn't matter what the science says -- science can only tell you how effective the measures are. If the representatives know they will never be implemented no matter how effective because they are morally opposed by politicians (as proxy for the voters), doing studies on them is arguably not an effective use of time, money, and expertise for a policy agency, since the object of the study will never affect policy.