The short answer should obviously be yes. But within the climate change realm, there are some folks who think that scientific realities should dictate political attitudes:
Even as some studies suggest the potential for double-digit warming across the globe, the media has been stubbornly silent, treating climate change as an issue that is still up for political debate, instead of a scientific reality.
That is a dangerous viewpoint to hold and to operate from. This isn’t an either-or choice to make. Politics and science are two very different enterprises for many different reasons. Would these same advocates accept dictated political attitudes based on religious reality? Of course they wouldn’t. So why should others blindly adopt their viewpoint?
This is but one example of climate advocates trying to silence others’ opinions, the same charge that they accuse the fossil fuel industry of doing to them. Which leads us to a rather inevitable conclusion: the fight isn’t about “reality” vs. politics (note the frame – if you don’t agree, you’re not a part of someone’s “reality”). The fight is over value systems. Many climate activists are using science as a proxy in a battle which demands other tools.
Another note: if the media isn’t paying “enough attention” to your BIG problem, perhaps the problem lies in your messaging and not the media’s bias. Doubling down on used-up rhetoric isn’t going to sell your story any better.