That doesn't negate the fact that one (or both) side can use bad or motivated science to justify their positions in a way that is falsifiable.

Questions of if (and how far) the salmon will go up the Klamath or if (and how many) homes will flood are example of this. Where opinions of fact differ, time will demonstrate one side to be right or wrong.

This highlights an inherent asymmetry of these situations. If the people who lose their livelihood are eventually proven right, that will be of little consolation. If the conservationist are proven proven wrong, it will be of little consequence.

A covid analogy would be non-parents using bad science to support school closure. If they are right, they lower their risk. If they are wrong, it isnt their kids that suffer.