I actually think forcing someone acting in bad faith (to use the sibling response's nomenclature) to accuse scientists out loud and directly in such a way is th

I actually think forcing someone acting in bad faith (to use the sibling response's nomenclature) to accuse scientists out loud and directly in such a way is the right approach here. The reason for this is that it forces the bad faith actor to enter the scene, they can't just slink away once the damage has been done and point back at the "doubt." It breaks the 4th wall in a sense, forcing the audience to realize that there is an active party with their own agenda in the scene. Effectively all a scientist has to say is "The literature is an evolving work that reflects our current understanding. There are many factors that are involved in making public policy, and it seems that you are looking for a way to limit the influence that science can have on that policy to further your own goals that are driven by other factors that seem to be at odds with the public good." It would be nice if they could also say "Anyone can read the literature for themselves ..." but unfortunately that is not currently the case.