_Science_ doesn’t say we should ban fossil fuels, but it does make predictions about what will happen if we continue to use them at the current rate.
It’s not science denial to be against the policy.
Try to voice any skepticism about climate change policy and most people will call you a climate denier.
Same with vaccines; express a skepticism of efficacy and suddenly you are an anti-science anti-Vaxer.
The irony is that skepticism and asking annoying questions is essential to science. Ignoring ‘anti-scientific’ arguments is inherently anti-science.
Science has nothing to say about what we should set as the objectives of our policy. Science can, however, inform our approach to attaining that objective.
Politics = applied philosophy Science = applied epistemology
Pretending that science can create policy leads to things like eugenics (but Darwin said it would make us fitter so it must be ‘good’!)