When that's the case, there is no scientific consensus to speak of, so I (and scientists, for that matter) withhold accepting any particular claim. But, in the case of the three issues I've mentioned in this thread on which I claim you don't accept the science, 10 vs 10 doesn't accurately describe the situation.
As above, were this the case, I would be forced to say I don't know which group is correct. Though, on that particular topic, I'm pretty sure the data points one way.
Sounds more like that's what you're doing. There's a clear scientific consensus on climate change (which, I acknowledge, COULD be wrong), for instance. I accept that position as likely true, because that's what the science says, not because that's what so-called liberals say. But, conservatives don't, and, since you're a conservative, you reject the scientific consensus and pretend there's somehow "equal" science the other way, when there just isn't.
I'm a liberal, among other reasons, because liberal positions on scientific issues are far more likely to comport with what the best science currently available says, whereas you have to dismiss science as being "liberal" so that you can hold onto conservative positions that go against that science. I don't choose my science based on political party, I've chosen the party that more closely aligns with science.
All that said, you're more than welcome to hold the positions you do. There's nothing wrong with disagreement and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that science can and does get things wrong. Proving someone else, or yourself, wrong is how science works in the first place. But you don't get to claim your positions are the scientific ones (at least on the three issues I mentioned), because they're not. Just because science CAN be wrong doesn't mean that it IS wrong on any particular issue.