This is the way it has always been done. If you believe you have the science to back up your conclusions you have the immutable truth. Then when you are proven wrong, you get egg all over your face. This is science at is highest level with politics, religion and economics thrown in.
No, you observe something in an attempt to understand it. When you think you have good evidence, you advance a theory, then you let the scientific community evaluate you. You do not, by contrast, start with a conclusion, sell the conclusion as fact to the world, attempt to enact political and economic policy in response, then conduct selective research to support your theory, while glossing over or outright lying about anything that doesn’t fit your models and claim that it makes the inevitable conclusion simply, ‘more difficult’ to prove.