Largely yes. However informed but divergent speculation amongst scientists is normal science, leading to firmer hypotheses, tests designed to check if the hypotheses work, and finally well-grounded consensus-based conclusions.
The problem here is that massive interest from the public (not necessary the public interest) has this process leaking into very visible forums, seen by people who naturally don't have the experience of how scientific uncertainty is debated, addressed and reduced. The public therefore too quickly acquires divergent opinions; and similarly none-too-scientific politicians always get pilloried from some quarter for whatever they do to try and steer a good path.