That’s a just-so narrative. Scientists can’t make political overtures and require evidence to draw conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.
Anyway, one of the problems with media consolidation is that people don’t hear competing narratives, so whatever narrative a small group of people decide on is what ends up feeling true to people.
I think if you looked at the specific questions that top US scientists were asked, the questions may have been political at times, but the responses have always been scientific and based on evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, although some have misinterpreted their responses to mean that. Science is a nuanced thing. Politics is a steamroller to nuance.
