QMany

I don't think that's the right word (for everything past science denial). I think they're core tenets of their philosophy. I don't find the arguments convincing but they're valid debates to be having.

Exhibit A is that things like today are the outcomes of such philosophy. If you don't like this, then those tenets must be revisited.

I'd challenge the notion they're all worth debating. You can't debate whether climate change is real. You can debate the extent to which it's occurred, how much it's our fault and if our efforts will do anything. But you can't debate its existence. That position simply isn't supported by evidence.