Science doesn't agree with anybody. It is what it is. On the other hand you can accept science, you can dispute science, you can even deny science but, beyond that, your choices are limited.
How many times have we criticized the radical Right for climate science denial? We routinely excoriate them for promoting false narratives that fly in the face of solid, scientific research - and rightly so.
Yet why is it, when it comes to nuclear science, the Left is as ridiculous as the Right? Suddenly we're joining the chorus attacking the credibility of nuclear scientists as the atomic equivalent of fossil fuelers. It's as though we've never managed to grow out of our "ban the bomb"/China Syndrome shells. "Oh you can't trust them scientists, they're surely up to something, they're in it for themselves."
Do you really believe, even just for a minute, that climate change scientists/advocates of the stature of James Lovelock or NOAA's James Hansen or The Guardian's George Monbiot would support nuclear energy as the only vehicle to enable mankind to wean ourselves off fossil fuels if their decades of research and scientific knowledge didn't leave them convinced of it? What do you think, they're like Loki out pulling your leg for the sheer fun of it? Do you think?
One thing the Fukushima fiasco has brought home to me is that the radical Left is every bit as odious, closed minded, dishonest and hypocritical as the radical Right and they both deserve our heartfelt contempt. Science isn't science when it conveniently bolsters your narrative, your dogma and garbage when it does not. If your narrative is convincingly dispelled by science, it's your narrative that's garbage and shame on you for pretending otherwise.