> I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open.

I'd accept that, but currently most climate and vaccine "skepticism" is just outright denial and they don't have their own evidence or data to support their claims properly. We don't need to take that seriously because it isn't serious and doesn't stand on its own merits. The onus is on them to present a valid argument for their dissent. Pushing for acceptance of "Skepticism" will be wielded like a weapon to bring people over to outright denial. I think we have an obligation to recognize that some people literally aren't capable of reasoning their way around complex issues or will not be able to understand the technical aspect of evidence required to gain an understanding and then intervene to prevent them from having dangerous thought patterns implanted in them by bad actors.

Live and let live works fine with bad ideas when everyone's motives are neutral but when people want to use these concepts for nefarious purposes they will co opt any amount of acceptance you give them and turn it into part of their brainwashing.