[qqqwerty]

Debates can make for great entertainment, but are a poor forum for establishing truth and fact. Case in point, the 'cancel culture' argument is designed to shift the debate away from the science and instead focuses the debate on the 'character' of the scientists. So instead of arguing about the facts of climate change (which at this point are hard to refute), we are arguing about whether its okay for scientists to try and boycott right wing conferences. That debate is a little more complicated and nuanced, enough so that the right leaning audience can walk away feeling like they have some ground to stand on. The point isn't to prove that climate change doesn't exist. It is to merely sow enough doubt in the minds of enough people to keep climate change action out of reach for the politicians.

[downerending]

It's not the kind of evidence I prefer, but people who concentrate on ad hominem attacks do effectively provide evidence in favor of their targets' position.