In the spirit of making the best argument for an opposing viewpoint, I think the better argument that would be made is that climate science is the only scientif

In the spirit of making the best argument for an opposing viewpoint, I think the better argument that would be made is that climate science is the only scientific discipline that seems predisposed to a certain, predicted outcome. The argument is made that facts are selected or engineered to support a negative outcome because those producing the science already deeply believe in a particular truth and inject that bias into their work. Any scientist seeking to prove otherwise is silenced or ridiculed by the majority, who happen to be true believers. It only takes a few dissenting voices or a few cases of statistics being "manipulated" to add credibility to it. The conspiratorial nature of it makes it even more compelling to untrusting, unsophisticated outsiders. I'm also suddenly reminded of Umberto Eco's book 'Foucault's Pendulum', which deals with belief and conspiracy. While a fun, satirical work of fiction, I found it to be very constructive in understanding how people can come to believe things that are completely wrong.