There is Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, left-leaning and right-leaning, but there is no “science and anti-science” — unless you want to talk fiction.

Science should exist outside of politics: It is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. It is conducted through experimenting, and shaped by conclusions tested to be proven true. Behind all scientific conclusions, there is data, statistics, evidence and concrete proof.

So it is puzzling to me that science has been misused in political platforms, where so many who have disputed science have neither the credentials nor qualifications to do so. There should be no sides to be taken or “alternative facts” to be made.

However, our current presidential administration has chosen to disagree with established discoveries both nationally and internationally recognized. For example, it does not feel that global warming and climate change created by the human population are real problems that deserve solutions — despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s insistence that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming,” with a likelihood of 95 to 100 percent for such being the case.

Some people in power have chosen to prioritize their political agenda over the health of the Earth’s ecosystem. Others have outright denied responsibility, and have instead blamed other countries for global warming — as if we were not all at fault for a globally enlarged carbon footprint. Even our very own president has his own beliefs that global warming is merely “a hoax created by and for the Chinese,” a denial that parallels his Energy Secretary’s claim that global warming is a “contrived and phony mess.”

There are motives behind these arguments, of course. But the advancement of any political agenda opposed to pure science inhibits progress needed in our capital. For so many within the Republican platform to deny the truth, and allow more carbon emissions to be pumped into our atmosphere, is disheartening indeed.

No one party should label itself skeptical of global warming when consequences are very clear. The rising sea levels, for one, threaten our coastal infrastructure, and I imagine that at least some of us plan on enjoying some nice beach houses in the future. If not for these people (and the entire population of Florida), you’d think that the rest of the world would like to avoid hurricanes and tornadoes and the extinction of countless species — but apparently we need to take sides on this, too.

Nowadays, we see the intrusion of hard science into politics, where these discoveries are abused. Recently, Republican representative Matt Gaetz has even proposed to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA — an entity that writes and enforces regulations derived from Congress’ environmental laws. It is a bill that will end the EPA’s legacy of ensuring safer pesticide use, improving air quality standards in metropolitan areas, suing Exxon for their 1989 oil spill, and more.

Even if this bill does not pass, our new presidential administration has already silenced the EPA in a temporary media blackout. It has banned press releases, stopped blog updates to the agency’s social media accounts, and prohibited staff from awarding any new contracts or grants. This means that the EPA may no longer properly inform the public, which is arguably its most essential purpose.

What the EPA has to say apparently does not align with the administration’s political agenda; after all, if citizens are not exposed to information, then the information might as well not exist. But the reality is this: No matter what the government wants us to hear, we deserve the right to know the truth — the evidence and research that is now suppressed.

I’m aware that you may label me a liberal after I’ve discussed our largely Republican administration. Despite my own leanings, whether right or left, I still want you to ask yourself if you’re willing to sacrifice factual information for the ramblings of unqualified politicians — regardless of your political standing.

If we make this sacrifice, we must face the consequences of problems that are left unsolved. These could include the violation of our right to fresh air, the slow rise of sea levels or the potential of an even hotter California. Politicians choose to argue instead of finding a path that would save our earth — instead of valuing factual information promoted by our scientists.

I encourage you to look at the evidence that politicians of both parties choose to ignore. Because no matter what political beliefs you have, you should not use them to oppose the best method we have of revealing truth.