Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant. How does this follow? If a scientific question is largely unresolved, we don't even have a basis up

Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant. How does this follow? If a scientific question is largely unresolved, we don't even have a basis upon which to evaluate decisions yet. Generally, disputed science never even touches on the political sphere. Now, with global warming the science is in fact largely settled, and thus we've moved on to the stage wherein one political faction says "This science demands that I do a bunch of unrelated things I wanted to do anyway!", whilst the other faction says "This science is inconvenient to my ideology, thus I will stubbornly deny objective reality!". Ah, politics.