This article was a great deal of verbiage expended to confuse apples and oranges. The two very different things discussed in this article are political/sociological dissent and differences among scientists. The former can go on endlessly because it is about aspects of the human condition that are changing constantly, and also about worldviews in peoples' minds, which can be shifted by argument. It is good to keep reporting all sides of such issues because sometime "x" side is right but later it may be wrong and vice versa.

Disagreements among scientists, on the other hand, are about how to interpret actual evidence about the real world. The empirical testing that takes place in science eventually arrives at scientific truth, defined as a view of some aspect of nature that is found to be the basis for consistently correct predictions about new phenomena within that area. The very definition shows that eventually the scientific sides have to, and do, stop wrangling and arrive at a consensus.

Thus, for example, if a "scientist" steeped in mysticism today decides that electric current flows not due to the electron theory and Maxwell's equations, but rather because mysterious spirits are pushing it, he is not going to be listened to because his theory does not accord with a reality that has been experienced millions of times over--i.e., if the spirits are capricious we might one day not get a current where we expect one, and such a failure never in fact occurs; if they are beneficent they might one day decide to give us a much bigger current than we expect in a given situation because they want to give us a gift. That never happens either. Ohm's Law always works.

Scientist eventually stop arguing because the testimony of nature compels it.

Right now there is a consensus of the vast majority of climate scientist that we all know because it has been reported to us--even here in the US, finally. If some outlier scientists have doubts about the evidence for this hypothesis they can safely be reported briefly in passing because the ACTUAL EVIDENCE GIVEN US BY NATURE gives them the lie according to a very large number of experts who have studied the evidence in depth.

A bit further down the road they will be as utterly dismissible as flat earthers. Unfortunately, time is not on our side here. Industry, and particularly US industry, can do an enormous amount of damage to the world in the journalistic waiting period, if journalists wait to report as truth the theory that now works superbly until absolute certainty about it has been achieved.