Something ironic about astronomy vs. climatology

Sitting at my desk, writing a story about the latest Nobel Prize in physics, I realized something amusing. The prize was awarded for the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. This finding was practically revolutionary, and I began thinking about other scientific findings that have also revolutionized science in the recent past. Climate change immediately came to mind. (Probably because I finished writing a story on climate change just a couple of weeks ago.) Climate change, while generally accepted in science, is highly controversial in public and especially political circles. So, why do politicians not severely oppose or outright reject an accelerating universe the way they do climate change? Obviously, this question is pretty easily answered, but I still wanted to write this down and share my thoughts. An ironic difference between science fields.