Um, when you have to try to make a political point by trying to discredit science (and, by extension, the scientific method), you fail dramatically.
Political “science” is not science, but a discipline of sociology—which basically assumes that people can be molded into any unnatural behavior by the proper conditioning.
Real science examines the natural world, makes logical assumptions based on observed facts about that world (aka “hypotheses”), and tests those assumptions. When the assumptions are shown to be incorrect, scientists revise them to take into account the new data and retest. In this way, little by little, the true nature of the world is revealed. The scientific method is, by its nature, self-correcting, and eventually does get to the truth. You cannot force science to demonstrate untrue things about nature, no matter how much you want to, and you cannot advance technologically unless you understand natural laws. For example, science fiction makes the concept of faster-than-light travel very exciting. But physics has established that it is impossible to go faster than light. No matter how much we want to disbelieve the physical law that makes exceeding light speed impossible, we cannot make a vehicle that travels faster than light. It won’t work.
Marxism has nothing to do with science. If anything, it is anti-science, in that it tries to impose behavior systems on human societies that conflict with our natural, biologically-driven, social structures. Physical law absolutely cannot be broken, not even by dedicated Marxists.
So why is Global Warming the biggest threat to the planet if your statement is true? There is no data to back it up, yet we are spending trillions of dollars on it and thousands of hours. How can that be if we have true science? How can it and evolution be taught in class as truth?