Dispiriting dialogue of the deaf

I'm a glutton for punishment. I really should know better than to plough through this sort of thing.

A man proposes that humanity and the planet would benefit if the scientific community were to verify all its findings before reporting them openly and without exaggeration and without allowing politicians to hijack science which alienates public opinion.

Ignoring the proposition, a second man opens a different debate altogether by accusing his interlocutor of denying what he (the opposer) says is the indisputable truth of a given scientific thesis and thereby endangering humanity. He challenges the proposer to disprove the scientific theory which he supports.

The proposer explains that this is not to the point and returns to his own proposition which is that it is unhelpful for information which might lead to a different conclusion from that held by his opponent to be withheld. He invites his opponent to agree with him that it damages the scientific community and process, and alienates public opinion, so making international political agreement more difficult.

The opposer again declines to respond but again challenges the proposer to disprove his favoured scientific opinion because, he asserts, it is true. He also offers criticism of some third parties of whom he disapproves politically, for all the world as though they were the responsibility of the proposer, and as though their political opinions were part of the original proposition about the dissemination of scientific information. The opposer (who never actually opposed) closes his remarks by warning of impending planetary catastrophe.

At no point were these two men discussing the same thing.