Political Controversy: Climate Change In The 21st Century

In our contemporary society of “alternate facts” and “fake news”, scientists and politicians have become almost interchangeable in popular culture. These drastically different field have gradually become more intertwined as scientists attempt to address pressing concerns which politicians quickly turn into partisan debates. Despite the inefficiencies of this process, it is interesting to consider the intersection of these fields. Furthermore, considering significant political controversies from the modern era it is evident that the introduction of science often reshapes or reframes the debate. This is particularly evident when analyzing the intersection of pseudoscience, stem cells, metadata, and nanny states with their respective political

This illustrates the power of pseudoscience because politicians can not possibly debate how to address climate change when a significant portion of our country does not believe it exists (17). Despite the extensive reports on the risks of climate change from many different scientists, government agencies, and non profits, many politicians adamantly deny climate change. Even when legitimate science, like the Keeling Curve which illustrates the yearly change in atmospheric carbon or the Stern Review which explains the significant economic impacts of a changing climate, is introduced into the political controversy, pseudoscience dramatically reduces its impact (17). These scientific reports are not very effective because of politicians like Representative Bucshon who claims that “the data does not support the premise that carbon dioxide emissions are playing a significant role in the world temperature variations”. This statement is simply incorrect; however, it is works because this controversy has become more about political orientation that actual science. Therefore, because pseudoscience spreads so much doubt and misinformation, legit science is only able to slightly reshape the political debate. This is significant because the introduction of new climate science to the

This debates primarily revolve around issues of personal freedom and privacy with citizens pushing back on government intervention. This sort of debate is illustrated by the privacy debate in New York City. The privacy debate is a national conflict between citizens and the government, but this situation provides an interesting perspective. As new information became available about nutrition and obesity, the mayor instituted a Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule which put a limit on the size of sugary beverages. Although this was intended to address obesity and improve overall health, many considered this policy to be reflective more of a Nanny State. This refers to government policies that are overprotective or interfere unduly with person choices of citizens. The opposition to this policy brought this debate to national media attention. Thus, the introduction of nutritional science a local conflict of government intervention which reshaped the larger controversy of