[DariusBane]

How can they possibly come to any conclusion? How about they just state what they find and don’t try to have “THE ANSWER”.

[Gondring]

Note that the actual concluding sentence from the abstract was

We conclude that neither the effects of climate change nor human hunting alone can be responsible for the decline of the cave bear and suggest that a complex of factors including human competition for cave sites lead (sic) to the cave bear's extinction.

If scientists just blindly collect data and never make a guess at its meaning, then they aren't scientists. How does one generate hypotheses without speculation?

It's often the laymen--including the lesser science reporters--who misuse the possibilities they suggest in the scientific literature.