LBM, finding the "truth" requires scientific research, in your view. (We can debate the "truth" that results from scientific research, but not now.) Scientific research requires $$$$. Allocating $$$$ (a scarce resource) requires decisions. People make decisions. Politics is about people. Politics is therefore inextricably involved in the truth finding process, i.e., scientific research.
If "[t]he main problem with this thread is the mixing of science and politics" in your view, then how is my critique of your "notion that science is divorced from politics ..." a misquote, as you say?
As to whether there's a "your side" to this, what part of this statement do you disagree?
"Your side" suggests we take the initiative to conquer Global Warming because it either is with us or very likely will be with us and to wait would be irresponsible or even calamitous. Regarding earlier misprognostications (e.g., Ice Age), we have learned more and have better data. Besides, doesn't it just make sense that auto and other pollutants would cause greenhouse effect which leads to GW?