I’m sorry Richard, but honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information is the one thing that all of us should hold completely non-negotiable in these discussions, in principle at least, no matter what our philosophy, theology, religious beliefs or whatever.
We can discuss what that looks in practice if you like. We can discuss who is or isn’t doing it, and who is or isn’t accusing others of not doing it. We can discuss philosophy or theology or what faith and religion are. We can discuss how to approach these subjects graciously without hurting people or destroying their faith. We can discuss how the data can and can not be legitimately interpreted, and whose interpretation is or is not correct. We can discuss what rules do or do not apply.
But when someone objects to me pointing out in principle that honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information is non-negotiable, telling me to “get off my high horse,” or accusing me of “placing my view and my data as superior over any other,” I’m sorry, but that’s the point at which I stop assuming that they are approaching these discussions in good faith. Such a line is to all intents and purposes demanding the right to tell lies.
While also claiming that scientists are lying, and have been lying, on an industrial scale, for more than two centuries.