Here's my problem with the climate debate: statements like "politicians refuse to acknowledge facts" implies that the facts are not in question, but then there are other scientists who say the data are skewed or insufficient or otherwise unreliable. There are also scientists (perhaps some of them the same people, perhaps not - I haven't paid close enough attention) whose theory is that climate change is driven much more by the solar cycle rather than human activity.

From there, it typically descends into the sort of courtroom contest where "my expert is better than your expert" because of all the politics involved. One side says we must radically change the foundations of society and the economy or the world will end, the other side says it's not a big problem and it's been happening since forever.

Any discussion by a layperson of these things results in the worst sort of internet crap, particularly if it seems to dispute the "facts" that seem to be undisputed to one side but not to the other.

So it's not just politicians who "refuse to acknowledge facts," it's also a lot of ordinary people who are skeptical when those facts are not undisputed, nor the theory that frames them, and then those who say it is so demand policy changes that disrupt their entire lives. Ask anyone from coal country if you don't believe me.