These aren't opinions though. It's not like saying cats are better than dogs. In not case of not listening, for decades there was debate about climate change. This has been resolved by evidence. In a story about astronomy, we don't invite an geocentrist to balance those prevaling heliocentric views. It's not an opinion that the earth orbits the sun, we have established that it's the case through evidence and data.
Science is based on evidence and empiricism. We have nuclear weapons because of fission and fusion, and we understand the processes behind those at the subatomic level. It's an opinion whether or not you think nuclear weapons is a good thing, but the nuclear weapons themselves aren't an opinion. You can say the same about genetic modification.
When we invite organizations to the table that deny all existing evidence, we are giving them a platform, making that denial credible. People see that, and think, well, there must be something to it, they're on the BBC. But it's not a credible belief. It's not supported by the evidence or the data.
The result of this approach is that a lot of people don't accept global warming. A nominee to a Supreme Court judge thinks climate change is 'contentious.' Elsewhere, people think intelligent design and creationism is an alternative to evolutionary theory, despite the fact there's no evidence. But they're presented as credible alternatives. That's the entire strategy of the groups behind them, of course. Teach the controversy, they say, while manufacturing that synthetic controversy.
