Yes. I think this is especially problematic when a legitimate policy idea is defended _only_ with "It's science based". That's not enough. Good policy is agreeable to a majority of people (both in benefit and cost and is therefore usually a tradeoff for all parties). Being grounded in truth, as much as science can provide, is not enough.

You can use truth and facts to form an opinion and propose a policy, but it cannot be made to sound like the only option, or else we end up embittering those who would be put out by the policy, to the point that they have no recourse _but_ to attack the science and facts. You _have_ to be willing to tradeoff and find an imperfect compromise.

Add to that the fact that scientific discoveries and understandings are especially easy to attack _because_ they are evolving.