Considering the sheer amount of toxic, dishonest, manipulative rage-fueled garbage that Twitter allows or algorithmically promotes every day on so many subjects, this specific ban reeks of sanctimonious hypocrisy to say the least.
All that aside from the simple fact that debate on such a complex subject should always be welcome (much like is the case with COVID and its vaccines, in which case it's possible to be against mandates while not arguing aginst the clinical value of vaccination in general), even if it includes points of view from deep within the denier camp. I don't doubt the science behind the reality of human-caused climate change, but even if some people do, rules like this will do nothing to make debate better, or spread better reasoning wider and further. They'll do the opposite, and only entrench bad ideas, rigid formalisms and ideological camps.
Furthermore, there is indeed plenty of room for debate on policies, specifics, ranges and other aspects of climate change without one sinking into full blown denial of established evidence and data.
All that aside from the simple fact that debate on such a complex subject should always be welcome (much like is the case with COVID and its vaccines, in which case it's possible to be against mandates while not arguing aginst the clinical value of vaccination in general), even if it includes points of view from deep within the denier camp. I don't doubt the science behind the reality of human-caused climate change, but even if some people do, rules like this will do nothing to make debate better, or spread better reasoning wider and further. They'll do the opposite, and only entrench bad ideas, rigid formalisms and ideological camps.
Furthermore, there is indeed plenty of room for debate on policies, specifics, ranges and other aspects of climate change without one sinking into full blown denial of established evidence and data.