A common form of double-standard practiced in State Pseudoscience and Pseudo-Skepticism.
The attempt to appeal to the intrinsical uncertainty of any scientific research in order to dismiss inconvenient results.
Any scientific research necessarily involves some degree of uncertainty and is therefore always open to possible refinements. State Pseudoscience capitalizes on this fact in order to label specific results as "inconclusive" and therefore meaningless.
A typical example is the practice of quoting cautionary warnings in scientific papers (such as "further studies are needed") and trying to pass them off as admissions of a complete unreliability of the study at hand.
It is important to notice that this practice is *only* adopted towards results that either contradict commonly accepted hypothesis, or confirm alternative ones. In all other cases (i.e.: data that seems to confirm convenient hypothesis or to contradict inconvenient ones), the exact opposite mindset is adopted and the data is immediately given its due weight (or even more than it actually deserves).
In this way, inconvenient hypothesis can never have any way to ascend beyond a perpetual limbo of "inconclusiveness", while convenient ones are granted the privilege of a quick and unobstructed rise to the status of "settled" science. In other words, alternative hypothesis can never be proven right, while accepted ones can never be proven wrong.