Gee lady, which side would Einstein be when debating Bohrs? Would it be Bohrs [sic] that was “denier/conspiracy theorist” or Einstein? What an astounding deficiency in epistemology you demonstrate.

Your analogy doesn’t hold. In regard to the sort of climate science “debates” that Dr Walter B. Paul was referring to (as per Siegel) the analogy would be Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein debating the existence of the atom. Or more to the point (of denier arguments), whether the phlogiston theory explains combustion.

A better comparison with the Bohr/Einstein debates might be scientists who study the crysphere debating whether the underlying physics of the melting of the West Antarctic ice shelf will be more likely to result in a meter or two rise in sea level by the end of this century or the next. That’s the sort of scientific debate that occurs in scientific literature and at conferences.