You are definitely onto something here with the following:
the left literally believes science should define their morals
There is so much wrong with this concept that my mind almost explode how many ways it can be easily debunked whenever anyone brings it up. And often, people the legacy media have chosen to elevate as smart put this idea forward. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson for example. I'm not sure if he is actually smart or not, but with respect to philosophy (the ability to think and reason in a general way), he is as dumb as a pile of bricks. He even gives examples to justify his argument on it that make no sense. I'd wish I remembered them so I could debunk them, but they're really forgettable.
The reason science does not and cannot generate morality is very simple. Science is a methodology of determining outcomes based on variables, nothing more. It can be used to develop technologies and methods of getting desired outcomes. However, it is just a tool, no more, no less. What a desired outcome is depends entirely on the morality of the person creating the experiment.
Where people seem to get confused is when the outcomes of scientific experiments shed light on a subject that is closely tied to their morality. However, that isn't science dictating their morality. It's just the science showing them how their moral hierarchy could be implemented better, but it does not create it.
I tried to find a good example of an argument that someone might use in science dictating morality but I could not find one that was in any way compelling so I'm just going create the best one I can to illustrate my point. Let's say that we find out through science that drinking apple juice extends the human life-span by 1 day on average compared to drinking orange juice. A scientific moralist might say, we should therefore ban orange juice and promote apple juice in its place to extend the human life-span. However, the science itself is just the raw data which does not care if people live longer or not or what kind of juice they drink. The scientific moralist made the judgement that increasing human life span by 1 day is a good thing (desired outcome). In addition, they made the moral judgement that the people's right to drink orange juice is worth less than them living 1 day longer. The science certainly informed what they might want to do, but all the moral judgement was with them to begin with.
Fundamentally, the problem is that most people have no idea what science is. And for someone who doesn't know what science is, it can seem like magic. As a result, a lot of people start to treat science like a god because they see it magically providing everything around them. They might turn their noses up at certain ancient peoples who worshiped let's say the sun (something that provided them with warmth and made their crops grow but they did not know how it worked) but they are doing the same thing. The cabal has taken advantage of this and has tried to equate itself with science so these people revere it. However, if you actually understand what science is, you understand that it is just a tool subservient to man. Man decides what that tool does. No sane person would worship a hammer for helping him build his house nor would they call it a good hammer because it helped to build a house and refrained from hitting his friend over the head (a moral choice the hammer clearly did not make).
Fundamentally, the problem is that most people have no idea what science is.
I think that is 100% correct.
When you take science at school you discover that it is difficult, has a lot of math(s) and teacher knows all the answers. I am sure that people go through life thinking that scientists know all the answers just like the teacher does.
However, in all research projects the scientists do not know the answers. They sometimes find wrong answers. They sometimes modify their answers to reflect what they irrationally believe and sometimes they suppress new ideas for many years because they choose to believe what they were taught, and are now re-teaching, rather than anything new.
Alfred Wegener was a victim of that. He thought that the continents drifted but establishment science would have none of it until after poor Wegener had died some decades later.
The issues in Science you describe are honest human mistakes, but we are beyond that. The mainstream media and establishments have declared themselves the arbiters of Science and now if they want the populous to do something but the populous resist, they just mindlessly say "follow the science" which itself is actually meaningless statement. Science is impartial. It takes not sides and can lead you anywhere, both bad and good. Furthermore, if there was science to follow (assuming that is where you want to go), they would be able to provide you with the data to back it up. In order to be repeatable, a scientific experiment has to be transparent and well documented. And yet somehow they never provide any data or proof that what they are saying is true. That is fundamentally unscientific. Pfizer never wanted to release any of their clinical trials. When they were forced to release data, it was found to be really poorly done and had inconsistencies that point to parts of it (at least) being faked.
As for scientific consensus, that is not a thing. The data and experimental results should speak for themselves. If you're having to point to scientific consensus instead of real data and results, you're clearly trying to subvert science, not uphold it's principals. You mentioned Alfred Wegener who was not believed due to scientific consensus but ended up being correct in the end. However, there are many more examples of this. My favorite is of Ignaz Semmelweis. He experimentally showed that using antiseptic procedures saved lives. They ignored him despite his unambiguous data. They ended up throwing him in an insane asylum where he died soon after. And they didn't (or at least should not have) had any motive to disbelieve him. Now you take something like COVID and climate change where scientists are paid to believe in the lies they propagate (COVID - Paid to administer the vax, Climate Change - Lost of government grants for climate science, if it stops being a threat these guys would lose their jobs).
I will end on the last and most modern method to fake science. Computer models. For example, in Ontario, Canada during the scamdemic, they had 3 allegedly independent models showing what would happen due to the virus which they used to justify their authoritarian response. It should come as no surprise (if you know how these people operate) that all 3 supposedly independent models vastly over-estimated the number of deaths and hospitalizations when compared to what ended up happening. It makes it quiet clear that none of these models were actually independent and they were just tuned to produce the result they wanted so they could implement the measure they wanted. The fundamental problem is that these models are so complex and have so many variables and with most being chaotic (very sensitive to initial conditions) that you can create a plausibly tuned model with any results. That makes these models unfalsifiable (because you can always go back and "fix" them to fit the data coming in) and fundamentally unscientific (if you can't create an experiment to prove something false, it is unscientific).
And that is what "climate change" is based on. Models that keep predicting disasters and keep being wrong. When they are wrong, they fix them to fit the new data with the model still predicting disaster in the future, to keep the narrative going and to keep the so-called scientists creating these garbage models well funded. Their latest name change is also clever. It's now called "climate change". Might as well re-name it to "the weather". Also, the 97% so-called consensus they beat us over the head is based on a really un-scientific study. For example, the study was based on a survey they conducted (they chose who to survey, that in itself is a problem). If a scientists answered that he believes that mankind likely does affect the climate but not necessarily in a critical way, they were added to the 97% which was then sold as 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is an existential threat. There was a youtube video that did a really good job of dismantling all the issues with that study however I can no longer find (either taken down or suppressed). In fact, Youtube has done a really good job of making sure you will never find alternate view points on climate change. I just tried to search for some and they were all supressed. That is also unscientific, scientific data is supposed to be open to scrutiny and should only be considered valid if it can withstand it to ensure an objective interpretation. "climate change" science on the other hand is being shielded from any type of criticism. If it was actually valid, that would not be necessary. If you're interested and haven't seen this before, here is an article that contains a 4 minute video (in the middle of the page) that breakdown why that 97% study was bogus (https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/consensus/). Ironically, the link it to youtube yet when I tried to search for something similar in Youtube, I found only videos affirming the bogus 97% number. Big Tech is all political now, you will never find what you're looking for it it's an alternative point of view of argument.
You are definitely onto something here with the following:
There is so much wrong with this concept that my mind almost explode how many ways it can be easily debunked whenever anyone brings it up. And often, people the legacy media have chosen to elevate as smart put this idea forward. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson for example. I'm not sure if he is actually smart or not, but with respect to philosophy (the ability to think and reason in a general way), he is as dumb as a pile of bricks. He even gives examples to justify his argument on it that make no sense. I'd wish I remembered them so I could debunk them, but they're really forgettable.
The reason science does not and cannot generate morality is very simple. Science is a methodology of determining outcomes based on variables, nothing more. It can be used to develop technologies and methods of getting desired outcomes. However, it is just a tool, no more, no less. What a desired outcome is depends entirely on the morality of the person creating the experiment.
Where people seem to get confused is when the outcomes of scientific experiments shed light on a subject that is closely tied to their morality. However, that isn't science dictating their morality. It's just the science showing them how their moral hierarchy could be implemented better, but it does not create it.
I tried to find a good example of an argument that someone might use in science dictating morality but I could not find one that was in any way compelling so I'm just going create the best one I can to illustrate my point. Let's say that we find out through science that drinking apple juice extends the human life-span by 1 day on average compared to drinking orange juice. A scientific moralist might say, we should therefore ban orange juice and promote apple juice in its place to extend the human life-span. However, the science itself is just the raw data which does not care if people live longer or not or what kind of juice they drink. The scientific moralist made the judgement that increasing human life span by 1 day is a good thing (desired outcome). In addition, they made the moral judgement that the people's right to drink orange juice is worth less than them living 1 day longer. The science certainly informed what they might want to do, but all the moral judgement was with them to begin with.
Fundamentally, the problem is that most people have no idea what science is. And for someone who doesn't know what science is, it can seem like magic. As a result, a lot of people start to treat science like a god because they see it magically providing everything around them. They might turn their noses up at certain ancient peoples who worshiped let's say the sun (something that provided them with warmth and made their crops grow but they did not know how it worked) but they are doing the same thing. The cabal has taken advantage of this and has tried to equate itself with science so these people revere it. However, if you actually understand what science is, you understand that it is just a tool subservient to man. Man decides what that tool does. No sane person would worship a hammer for helping him build his house nor would they call it a good hammer because it helped to build a house and refrained from hitting his friend over the head (a moral choice the hammer clearly did not make).
I think that is 100% correct.
When you take science at school you discover that it is difficult, has a lot of math(s) and teacher knows all the answers. I am sure that people go through life thinking that scientists know all the answers just like the teacher does.
However, in all research projects the scientists do not know the answers. They sometimes find wrong answers. They sometimes modify their answers to reflect what they irrationally believe and sometimes they suppress new ideas for many years because they choose to believe what they were taught, and are now re-teaching, rather than anything new.
Alfred Wegener was a victim of that. He thought that the continents drifted but establishment science would have none of it until after poor Wegener had died some decades later.
The issues in Science you describe are honest human mistakes, but we are beyond that. The mainstream media and establishments have declared themselves the arbiters of Science and now if they want the populous to do something but the populous resist, they just mindlessly say "follow the science" which itself is actually meaningless statement. Science is impartial. It takes not sides and can lead you anywhere, both bad and good. Furthermore, if there was science to follow (assuming that is where you want to go), they would be able to provide you with the data to back it up. In order to be repeatable, a scientific experiment has to be transparent and well documented. And yet somehow they never provide any data or proof that what they are saying is true. That is fundamentally unscientific. Pfizer never wanted to release any of their clinical trials. When they were forced to release data, it was found to be really poorly done and had inconsistencies that point to parts of it (at least) being faked.
As for scientific consensus, that is not a thing. The data and experimental results should speak for themselves. If you're having to point to scientific consensus instead of real data and results, you're clearly trying to subvert science, not uphold it's principals. You mentioned Alfred Wegener who was not believed due to scientific consensus but ended up being correct in the end. However, there are many more examples of this. My favorite is of Ignaz Semmelweis. He experimentally showed that using antiseptic procedures saved lives. They ignored him despite his unambiguous data. They ended up throwing him in an insane asylum where he died soon after. And they didn't (or at least should not have) had any motive to disbelieve him. Now you take something like COVID and climate change where scientists are paid to believe in the lies they propagate (COVID - Paid to administer the vax, Climate Change - Lost of government grants for climate science, if it stops being a threat these guys would lose their jobs).
I will end on the last and most modern method to fake science. Computer models. For example, in Ontario, Canada during the scamdemic, they had 3 allegedly independent models showing what would happen due to the virus which they used to justify their authoritarian response. It should come as no surprise (if you know how these people operate) that all 3 supposedly independent models vastly over-estimated the number of deaths and hospitalizations when compared to what ended up happening. It makes it quiet clear that none of these models were actually independent and they were just tuned to produce the result they wanted so they could implement the measure they wanted. The fundamental problem is that these models are so complex and have so many variables and with most being chaotic (very sensitive to initial conditions) that you can create a plausibly tuned model with any results. That makes these models unfalsifiable (because you can always go back and "fix" them to fit the data coming in) and fundamentally unscientific (if you can't create an experiment to prove something false, it is unscientific).
And that is what "climate change" is based on. Models that keep predicting disasters and keep being wrong. When they are wrong, they fix them to fit the new data with the model still predicting disaster in the future, to keep the narrative going and to keep the so-called scientists creating these garbage models well funded. Their latest name change is also clever. It's now called "climate change". Might as well re-name it to "the weather". Also, the 97% so-called consensus they beat us over the head is based on a really un-scientific study. For example, the study was based on a survey they conducted (they chose who to survey, that in itself is a problem). If a scientists answered that he believes that mankind likely does affect the climate but not necessarily in a critical way, they were added to the 97% which was then sold as 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is an existential threat. There was a youtube video that did a really good job of dismantling all the issues with that study however I can no longer find (either taken down or suppressed). In fact, Youtube has done a really good job of making sure you will never find alternate view points on climate change. I just tried to search for some and they were all supressed. That is also unscientific, scientific data is supposed to be open to scrutiny and should only be considered valid if it can withstand it to ensure an objective interpretation. "climate change" science on the other hand is being shielded from any type of criticism. If it was actually valid, that would not be necessary. If you're interested and haven't seen this before, here is an article that contains a 4 minute video (in the middle of the page) that breakdown why that 97% study was bogus (https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/consensus/). Ironically, the link it to youtube yet when I tried to search for something similar in Youtube, I found only videos affirming the bogus 97% number. Big Tech is all political now, you will never find what you're looking for it it's an alternative point of view of argument.