The problem with putting it that way is it becomes me impugning the reputations of the scientists. I don't have any evidence to do that. The science is 'real' if you are reporting your findings and in this case a conjecture, couched as probability, not certainty. It doesn't become not science because you're wrong, which is why Isaac Newton is still considered a great scientist despite being colossally wrong in every frame of reference except this one.
There is a large contingent of people, especially in governments, that want to roll back the western world. I don't know if it's self-hate or they see some opportunity or something else entirely. This issue was hijacked by them, just as environmentalism has been. But acknowledging when something was misused, if there's no evidence of bad faith, only strengthens your position. If nothing else you completely knee-cap the blanket 'you're just anti-science' dismissal.
By 'no evidence of bad faith' I mean the initial findings that started all this — not the circus that followed, which had and has plenty.
EDIT: Much of which you were pointing out initially. It may not have seemed that way, but I was agreeing with you but with context.
