No, it’s not.
Otherwise we would find politically incorrect scientific research suppressed with the threat of criminal prosecution.
Eric Holder would be all too eager to prosecute anyone who dares question AGW. Or whether homosexuality is genetic trait vs a choice. Or whether fetus feels pain.
Exactly, fraud can already be prosecuted under fraud statutes and as a tort. Giving modern governments the power to silence scientific dissent would be a terrible step backwards.
I agree with you unless the scientists are engaged in fraud, intentionally taking money for phony results. I think current laws already address fraud. Intense political and social pressure has always affected science. Such is more exactly the case for AGW. Modeling is prone to bias. Regional studies can’t be represented as global.
As you say, if you criminalize “inaccurate” science you just substitute political bias for scientific bias. Even AGW hasn’t been disproven, it just hasn’t much evidence in its favor vs a pile of evidence against which is, in some cases, being suppressed.
However, falsifying data, ignoring data which do not agree with the viewpoint being presented, should be dealt with within the scientific community (it used to be self-policing, to some extent).
There are situations when doing so places people in peril. It goes beyond mistakes, and transcends the boundaries of criminal negligence, willful endangerment of others, or fraud. Then there is a criminal case.
But until the politicians clean up their act (and maybe not even then) we don't need politicians ruling on what is scientifically valid. If they understood the science, chances are they wouldn't be politicians.