Because political questions don't have scientific solutions. Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are un

Because political questions don't have scientific solutions. Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases? In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up. But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc. You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology. Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those? Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about. For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion. Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.