There is a reason why meta studies that look at findings from different countries often has to account of cultural bias. Different objective truths can be found

There is a reason why meta studies that look at findings from different countries often has to account of cultural bias. Different objective truths can be found depending on how one look, including findings that give contradicting conclusions. The existence of Global Warming, or Human Rights, or LGBTQ+, or Vaccines is not the topic which academia (or people in general) debate. Outside of some very fringe places, there is practically no discussion of it. The thing people debate is the strategies. Different ideologies will have different answers to which strategies works, are effective, and what costs they are allowed to have (and to whom). A common topic that the green movement discuss, and which often comes into global warming research, is fair wages for minorities and the impact of global warming on that demographic. People and politicians will discuss that and not the factual argument that Global Warming exist. There is a similar argument over human rights as defined in Europe vs human rights as defined in the US. They both acknowledge human rights but with widely different interpretations. At a concept level, the idea of protected classes as a classification has very little to do with human rights as a theory but has everything to do with different strategies that involve human rights. Abolishing which demographic should be included, or including new demographics are hot topics of debate. What people debates most heated over and get most emotional about is not when people disagree with the facts, but rather when both sides of an argument agree with the facts but disagree with the best strategy to go forward. That is when science becomes politics.