I would agree. To me, "conspiracy theories" are simply hypotheses proposed to explain unknowns in the absence of verifiable ground truth.

The label (& corresponding negative connotation) is applied by those in the majority to hypotheses that differ from those of the "consensus" & particularly, to discredit ones that are perceived to disturb/implicate those pushing the status quo.

For example: it's observable that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The majority that agrees w that statement is aware of the damage done by burning fossil fuels. However, that same majority is either completely unaware of or refuses to discuss another significant cause: geoengineering (eg weather modification, atmospheric aerosol injections and "solar radiation management").

Among other damage (irreparably destroying & poisoning all living organisms, air, water, soil), it's naturally prohibitive of renewables use & enables further use of fossil fuels by masking effects of burning them. However, the majority pushing the "consensus" labels those that note this anthropogenic component "conspiracy theorists" w/zero basis.