The problem is climate policy determines climate science.
> I also think the blame for that can be placed squarely with those who have chosen to attack institutions of scientific truth
"Institutions of scientific truth". Sounds rather orwellian, but yours is a form of appeal to authority. Institutions don't determine "scientific truth", experiments do.
> because they are opposed to policy that might result from what is clearly true.
Spoken like a true believer.
> Blame the politicization of "science" on the pro oil propagandists that put in the effort to make it that way
Enough blame to go around. And you aren't any better than the oil propagandists.
> The naive "pro-science" stance is a reaction.
Yes. Oil companies funded the oil propagandists. Who is funding the "green" propagandists. I wonder?
"Anti-science" is just a propaganda term extremists accuse each other of being. It's a very easy tell.
Nobody is against science. What people fight about is politics. "Man can be a woman", "climate science", "masks vs no masks", "lockdowns", etc are not scientific issues, it's political issues.
"Educate more" wouldn't help because it's not a matter of science, but politics. And there are plenty of educated people on both sides.
Also, when a political group tries to use science to push their agenda, people should be wary. Pretty much all the genocides and horrors of the past 200 years have been a result of politicized science. People forget that modern white supremacy, nazism, communism, etc are all a result of politicized science. People who use terms like anti-science today are the same people who accused supporters of racial equality as being anti-science 100 years ago.
And it's been my experience that people who accuse other people of being "anti-science" have no background in science or understand the history of science. They are just political extremists who undeservedly wrap themselves around the good name of science as if it were a flag to attack their political opponents.