It is most certainly about scientific debate. The public already has a distorted view of what science is and how it works. One example: that things are "proven"

It is most certainly about scientific debate. The public already has a distorted view of what science is and how it works. One example: that things are "proven" rather than "disproven," as I noted in my original comment. The Smithsonian article feeds into that misperception by suggesting that there are "settled" scientific questions. You could say that in its own way the Smithsonian article has injected misinformation for public consumption. Unfortunately, it is not alone in thinking the ends justify the means when it comes to the question of climate change.