Science does not have all of the answers.

But it does have some, and progressively works to provide others while refining those that need updating.  There many scientific theories in the news these days with great political impact.  Perhaps the two most important are man-made global-warming (climate change) and the Big Bang.  The latter tends to be in the mainstream (as opposed to scientific) news because it conflicts with the theory of creationism (which, to be clear, is not the theory that god created the universe, but that god created the universe precisely and literally in the way described by the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis).  Thus, certain educational systems are conflicted with regard to what cosmology should form the foundation of science classes.  The second, of course, affects politics more broadly and on a federal level.  If it turns out that humans cause or contribute to global warming (and on the assumption that climate change is bad--or at least bad for us), then something must be done legislatively about it.  The problem with the public debate (and the debate must be public precisely because it has consequences outside of the scientific community) is that the science involved is sometimes quite complex, and the average participant in such a debate may not have all the tools necessary for such participation.  However, there is a bare minimum for participation that I think the average non-expert can achieve quite easily.  That bare minimum is a basic understanding of what scientific knowledge is: that is, you should understand the scientific method, you should understand the importance of predictability and falsifiability, you should have some grasp on the meaning of 'fact', the importance of elegance and simplicity, and recognize the value of peer revue.  Most of these are basic notions one should learn in high school or college.  Nevertheless, many do not learn them, others forget.  The result is that public conversation regarding the social and political implications of science look like this:

Now, I am not interested in weighing in on the topic of climate change (though, you should keep in mind two things: 1. The debate is about human involvement, not whether or not it is occurring; 2. A particularly cold winter does not disprove global "warming"--a misnomer in any case--and can be the effect of such "warming").  What is important here is the misunderstanding of the nature of fact and the importance of consensus within the scientific community.  Many who are untrained or uneducated in science broadly speaking assume that science is concerned with the observable--if you can't see it, science has no business discussing it, and there can be no established fact regarding it.  Nothing could be further from the truth--indeed, theoretical physics is a wonderful example of establishing fact without direct observation.  One may ask what makes Copernicus' heliocentric system better than Ptolemy's geocentric?  Copernicus had no greater view (literally) of the solar system than did Ptolemy--the telescope had been invented by then, but that made no difference since such an amazing tool would have been useless (in this context) to someone standing on the surface of the earth.  What made Copernicus' system better was, first, its elegance/simplicity--that is to say, his theory of the solar system explained more phenomena within our solar system using less math (proportionally) than did Ptolemy's proposal.  Second, Copernicus' system was reliably predictive.  The point is that fact is a flexible notion and does not refer simply to that which can be sensed directly.  Consensus among scientists plays an important part in establishing scientific truth as well--this is one of the purposes of peer review journals.  Of course, your mom was right when she asked, "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn bridge would you too?"  You should not agree with an idea simply because most others do (what an incredibly dull and unscientific world we'd live in).  But without some reliance on consensus, we cannot make progress in science (by the way, the same could be said for disagreement).  All of this to make a simple point: to think that science equals consensus is a "science fail", but ignoring consensus altogether disqualifies you from any scientific conversation at all.  Of course, maybe Brian Kilmeade is correct and all the climatologists who suggest that humans contribute to climate change are corrupt.  But before I concede, I'd like to see his evidence--and before he provides that evidence I'd like him to look up the phrase 'circumstantial ad hominem'.