"But it's SCIENCE!!"

Not so fast. What happens all too often is Hume's Is/Ought Problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.
When the left declares something as being "science", they are usually making this mistake. Science attempts to tell what "IS". (Or more precisely, science tells you what "is not".) For example, science tells us that the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle. What science cannot tell you is what to do about it, if we should do something about it, or if we even can do something about it. Once they start making those claims, they've already moved beyond science and fallen victim to the Is/Ought Problem.



Pretty much every claim they make falls victim to this problem and they don't even realize they're doing it. I used the environment example, but what about:
Covid? IS = this is how the virus appears to spread. OUGHT = we need to have lockdowns and mask wearing.
Racial Disparities? IS = there are statistical differences in outcomes. OUGHT = we need rules to eradicate racism completely.
Wealth? IS = a large portion of the wealth is concentrated among the few. OUGHT = we need to government to level the playing field.
Education? IS = education is expensive. OUGHT = government should make education more accessible.
Health Care? IS = without adequate health care, people will die. OUGHT = Health Care should be a human right.

As you can see, claims of "science denial" are usually based on the "ought" principle. But as Hume laid out in 1739:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
I thought this understanding may be helpful in your discussions.