When scientist gathers data to support a point of view? Isn't that just biased statistics of exaggeration? And, is that scientific?

The scientific method is ROUTINELY ignored...well, BY EVERYONE. We, as scientists, are SKEPTICAL about literally EVERYTHING!! And we are supposed to be...all the time...FOREVER. That is how it works.

We don't have a point of view...we have hypothesis. We create EXPERIMENTS to test the hypothesis and gather data...not to support or undermine...BUT TO TEST. If we have a conclusion...one way or another , we can then come up with a THEORY...and then we let the WORLD know about the theory...and then let EVERYONE THROW STONES AT IT!!! This is what needs to be done. Always...each and every time.

Climate change is a HUGE CLUSTER F#CK when it comes to science, as an example. Nobody is challenging the so called "science" and they scream...THE SCIENCE IS DONE!!

Science is NEVER DONE!

That's not how science works.

The scientific method can be broken down into six steps.
First, an observation is made or a question is asked.
Second, research is done on existing knowledge of the subject.
Third, a hypothesis is formed.
Fourth, a an experiment is done to test the hypothesis.
Fifth, the data from the experiment is collected and analyzed.
Sixth, a conclusion is made, either accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.

Edit: "Doesn't real science take in a broader perspective"
Again, that's not how science works. Science merely uses data to answer a question. It has nothing to do with perspective.

It's scientific and unbiased, as long as the scientist acknowledges that other data would support an opposing point of view.

The whole point of everything linked to funding is to sway opinion.

It can be a biased view of statistics, there are plenty of cases of that, but it can be a collection of well understood basic facts that lead to a single conclusion.