You have a pretty good understanding of the issue however you're either unaware or omitting one important fact. Much of the friction in left v. right issues ti

You have a pretty good understanding of the issue however you're either unaware or omitting one important fact. Much of the friction in left v. right issues tied to science or "science" is that in recent decades the Science Community has produced and condoned a wide body of junk science through poorly-designed studies, slavish worship of the P value, outright industry-based lies, corrupting control groups with non-inert placebos. All relying on a sacrosanct Peer Review system wherein it is impossible to find capable reviewers that are not tainted by industry money. Not even at the university level. Add to that several editors of prestigious journals like NEJM and The Lancet coming forth and saying "half of what was published in my journal was crap". Don't forget all the scientists who support this system through silence, coerced by their fear of losing their jobs for challenging the "science" published by their employers. In short, the Science Community has created what appears to many as an insurmountable problem of credibility and integrity. In other words, no such "I believe the science" assertions will be forthcoming from climate change deniers. Maybe if the Science Community as a whole can divorce itself from its numerous conflicts of interest and excoriate and excise the junk from its current offerings. I'm a strong advocate of science and the scientific method, and I think much of what is labeled as "Science" should more appropriately be labeled "Propaganda". I've read plenty of stuff that a 6th Grade Science teacher would easily call out for violating the fundamentals of the Scientific Method. Add a little quid-pro-quo with your peer reviewers, and voila, study published in prestigious journal. Career advancement.