Yes, because I want a place to read articles about measuring its nature, shape, and effects. I want to be able to talk about countermeasures, so I have to be able to advocate theories of detailed causes---and I need to hear the best possible arguments about why those are wrong.

I'd love to have similar conversations about how nature and nurture affect outcomes, including how race and sex tendencies are or are not swamped by a lifetime of socialization, but our society has absolutely no way to do so without hurting a lot of people. We have other good work to do, so we can defer those conversations—maybe past my lifetime. Maybe try having them in smaller settings, with a framework of trust and love?

I think that, if a random Google engineer wrote an essay about why climate change isn't real, it would be weird and inappropriate to insist something be done about it.

That's a straw man reply. You cherry picked one of the most easily defensible claims and then implied that the OP would disagree. What gives you the right to implicate them in this way? Or did I miss another post in this thread where the OP did, in fact, express skepticism of climate change?

What stops me from implicating them in this way? The OP made an unqualified assertion - "for every point" - which means it would apply even to the most extreme example.

Edit: And I didn't ask the OP if they are skeptical of climate change. I merely asked if they would be in favour of letting those that are skeptical express their opinion.

>The OP made an unqualified assertion - "for every point"

No, it is possible to defend every point imaginable. Look up "Hempel's ravens". It is trivial to generate evidence supporting or opposing any claim you like.

"Scientific consensus" is a term I dislike, as it seems more opinion-based and authoritarian, and less evidence-based.

I get what you're saying, but I don't know of a better phrase. "Whatever the most studies published in reputable journals seem to suggest" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.