Rachel Carson, DDT, and Silent Spring

In present-day politics, the environment continues to be an important topic, as well as a topic that is highly fraught. Indeed, even though most of the world’s climate scientists agree that there is irrefutable scientific evidence to confirm that human activity contributes significantly to climate change and global warming, there are politicians and members of the public who state that the element of human activity is debatable, with some politicians eve suggesting that “climate change” is a hoax. When Rachel Carson first published Silent Spring, she too met with fierce opposition, from politicians as well as from manufacturers of the chemical ingredients she was calling into question. What is your take on the ongoing debates surrounding our environment? For, example, if the majority of leading scientists agree that climate change is exacerbated by human activity, or that DDT is a chemical with lethal consequences for humans and animals (other than the so-called “pests” targeted by the substance), should politicians be allowed to debate scientific evidence? If yes, why? If no, why not? How are politicians equipped to plausibly challenge scientific findings? What are some of the reasons for believing scientific evidence, over policy considerations? Why might politicians and lobbyists challenge scientific findings? And are these challenges credible? If yes, how so?