[listenallyall]

>> if you suppress legitimate criticism

Climate-change alarmists refuse to acknowledge that any criticism could possibly be legitimate. Every questioning of the narrative, even just a bit, is dismissed -- funded by Big Oil/Koch/right-wingers, not a "real" scientist, too stupid to understand why "adjustments" were necessary, "the science is settled!" -- etc. In many cases, editors insist critical articles be completely deleted/removed, rather than available to even be seen or discussed.

Example -- recent (2 days ago) post offers an alternative interpretation of respected climate scientists' own published data. Flagged almost immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21961462

Disagree? Please point to criticism of climate science widely deemed to be "legitimate."

[Fellshard]

This criticism has become the 'mortal sin' of modern science, in a similar way to criticisms of evolutionary theory. If a theory has no criticisms, it means no one is really thinking hard about it.

[FireBeyond]

Alarmists, or extremists on both sides, are never really the best basis for such arguments.

> funded by Big Oil/Koch/right-wingers

I mean, after all, we all know that George Soros is financing climate change activism and protests, right? /s

Better is finding the calm voice. Looking for alarmists and squawking is always going to find polarizing, and often non-defensible, positions.