And this, to me, speaks to the beauty of science and research - it is all there, the methods, the data, the analysis, the rationale. It is all laid out in black and white. It isn’t an editorial.
As such, if you want to argue the science, have at it - but argue the actual science. Point out what you think is flawed in the actual science. That’s not what conspiracy kooks even try to do.
Now, if you want to argue about how the science should be applied to society from a policy perspective- as is usually the motivation for people who make issues out of these things - that’s perfectly fine, and reasonable people can certainly disagree about this, because societies and cultures are incredibly complex.
But don’t try to make your point by discrediting the actual science unless you can, you know, intelligently cite how the actual science is flawed, which means demonstrating that a whole bunch of really dedicated people all got something wrong in every paper that it relevant to a field.