Latour described in a fairly recent paper (and I paraphrase) how agents on the conservative side of the political spectrum were recruiting the critical tools developed from the other end to protect society from unstable science prematurely declared to be stable, in order to create the appearance of unreliability and inconsistency where solid science was presented, a process which some have dubbed manufactroversy (a portmanteau of manufactured and controversy). In that paper he wrote, among other things: “Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can’t I simply say that the argument is closed for good?“.
A researcher has dedicated much time and energy to a thorough takedown of one of the most vocal climate change denialists, and I can’t do any justice to that enterprise by summarizing it, so the entirety of the presentation can be reached here.
The new round in this story is that the object of said takedown tried to reply to it (among other things, threatening the researcher and the university that employs him), only to embarrass himself further.
As they say on the internets: lol.