I have political actors and bodies like the UN and domestic US governments militating for global wealth re-distribution, redistributive and Pigolian taxation, increased regulation and restrictions in individual free choice in consumption and economic activities, diversion of public monies to fund sective "green" ventures - all overtly citing AGW THEORY as justification for these political and socioeconomic agendas.<quoted text>
"While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution"
Meaning that all you have for an argument is a conspiracy theory.
So you are saying these actors and bodies are merely theoretical, and do not actually exist? You are denying that they are citing AGW THEORY explicitly as part of, if not the principal basis for their agendas of political and socioeconomic revolution?
If that's a mere "conspiracy theory" to you, then everything is just another conspiracy theory also, and your argument is no argument at all.
That's your strawman.<quoted text> '"science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.'
In other words reject science if it does not support your favorite conspiracy.
No - accept the science, and having recognized it, accept also that it's then largely irrelevant to the REAL and LARGER political and socioeconomic matters at issue.
I corrected the double-negative in a post immediately following - but you read this as intended.<quoted text> "But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method. "
Double negative here, but I think I follow what you are trying to spin. We are talking about the science, not the political ramifications thereof.
No - YOU are talking about the science off in the corner with a few other similarly obsessed nerds.
Everyone else at the party is bored with the science and has moved on to the much bigger topics of Pigolian Carbon taxes, taxing certain "undesireable" industries and economic activity, subsidizing others with public money, redistributing global wealth, etc.- and then throwing out cherry-picked pop AGW "science" as rhetorical support for their various agendas.
"... the scientific method is apolitical."<quoted text>"When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives. "
There is nothing wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument. It is when science is rejected for political purposes that things become problematic.
Nice try at spin and flabbergast but the fact remains that the scientific method is apolitical.
Co-opting it for political purposes is not.
Nor is the the scientific method universally applicable to all human and cultural issues and problems - except in the mind of logical positivists like yourself who are only capable of seeing and dealing with the real world through that one lens.
And there is everything wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument when "the scientific method" is hauled out beyond its proper sphere into the political arena, to be used by the POLITICAL contestants as a rhetorical bludgeon to steamroller and suppress other, equally or more valid, viewpoints and and arguments on matters that are not properly matters of scientific inquiry.
Go ahead and do it - but leave your pretended "apolitical" lily-white "scientific" robes at the door when you do.