I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but in reality it's very easy. You throw out data points that don't fit your 'story', you use creative statistical analysis, you make sure your graduate students and post-docs know that they have to give you "good data" (meaning it fits your story), and you strongly over-interpret your data. You recommend friends/connections to journals as potential reviewers of your manuscripts - and you do the same for them. All of these things, and much more, are very common in science currently.
You forgot the most important thing of all... prohibiting the publication of “peer-reviewed” papers that disagree with the official narrative.
No papers that go against the official “climate change” narrative, for instance.