Science must deconstruct the universe to understand it since it's improbable that one could understand everything all at one.
Yes, that is the role of basic science. Applied science, on the other hand, is the opposite. It takes multiple bits of basic science and builds it back up into something we use to manipulate our environment.
Basic science deconstructs to get a set of basic tools or building blocks. Applied science then picks up the blocks and tools and builds something.
In the midst of all this we have manipulators that try to hide certain blocks or tools or mis-apply them for their own gain.
To say science is flawed is an over-generalization.
Either way, politicization by both the extreme left and right is not particularly helpful in a debate that may very well have a significant impact on our near term well being.
I look at the whole climate debate from a different angle: what are the consequences of being wrong on either side of the debate.
If climate scientists are wrong, we spend a bunch of billions on reducing our impact on the planet and at the very least improve the quality of the air we breath and the water we drink.
If the other side is wrong and we do nothing, we cause wholesale change in our climate and also cause a whole lot of death destruction and misery.
I figure that the wealthiest 2% of the population can afford a few billion in insurance.
