Well, thankfully it is not.
There's no need for one side or the other to "win," especially at this point. Instead, likely, debate will continue until a more-nuanced view is better understood and accurately disseminated.
(Not necessarily a view "in the middle." Sometimes one side is just Right, Full Stop. But a more-nuanced view when there's strong disagreement on both sides is usually helpful for more people to understand _why_ there's disagreement.)
Maybe best not to put all your eggs in one basket, or bet your future on one strategy!
Also, the criticism is primarily a comment on methods (stats vs physical models) which can be based on lots of consideration and experience outside the context of any particular paper.
E.g. I can tell you that you've probably used the wrong optimization algorithm for particular task without spending much more than an hour glancing through your problem formulation and results. Doing that without the benefit of decades of experience would require weeks or months, but with experience I can make that determination quite quickly given a detailed write-up.
(FWIW: I think dynamical physics-based models are probably over-emphasized in climate science consensus, but I'm admittedly a complete novice whose opinion you shouldn't trust.)