Ooo I'll do it:
Climate Change Deniers you're as wrong as anti-vaxxers and anti-nuclear power advocates.
As to science being about reasoned evidence defenses. The reasoned evidence defenses of climate change science have been made. The people who deny it don't use science they use a misrepresentation of science or no science at all "Well it was hot yesterday!"
So yes it's perfectly legitimate to slam conservatives who refuse to accept a reasoned well cited scientific paper on global warming and it's perfectly legitimate to slam liberals who think their kids will get autism from a vaccine --not because it's a case of "heresy" but because they aren't practicing science they're practicing belief under the guise of science aka psuedoscience.
Flat Earthers aren't ridiculed because they are heretics. They're ridiculed because they don't have an empirical leg to stand on. Science doesn't say that everybody's opinion is worthy. Science doesn't say (A) is true and (B) is false. But when you have a mountain of empirical evidence saying (A) and no evidence to support (B) but the (B) group uses psuedoscience like "Well we weren't there to observe it on camera. Therefore we don't know God didn't do it." or you have psuedoscience like "My kid got a shot and then developed autism therefore it's a shot" or "The world was warm before so how do we know carbon dioxide is responsible today, we don't" then you aren't exhibiting a critical empirical rebuttal you're just stating an opinion. Science doesn't tell us for a fact that if you jump off of a building without sufficient drag or a soft enough landing pad that you will absolutely die. But if you are a gravity denier and jump off thinking you'll just fly up into the air like a bird we can say "What were you freaking doing? What was wrong with you?"
To expect science to not confidently state things as 'fact' that we pretty certainly know to be true as far as truth can be known is holding science to an impossible standard. Sure maybe gravity won't exist tomorrow. But if we can't at least operate on the assumption of there being facts then maybe you don't exist. Maybe you're a figment of my imagination. And if you all don't really exist then maybe I should be able to go on a shooting spree--after all if one opinion is as good as another and consensus is meaningless no matter how confidently we have observed something then my hypothetical belief that everybody is actually an alien in disguise performing a grand experiment on me is equally valid to everyone else's belief that we are all human on a planet called earth and I should be allowed to defend myself against all the alien overlords.
Science teaches us to be skeptical. But it is ultimately a philosophy based on empiricism. We believe the world to be round scientifically because of all the evidence. It's possible it is flat (or a cube) and we recognize that we will never absolutely know for certain, but we also can say for a fact that the world is round and anyone who disagrees is a nitwit without sufficient proof to overwhelm all of the evidence we have amassed to the contrary.
I know a lot of people hate to "believe" in global warming because it goes against their political ideology. But that's not science. Science is the encyclopedic mass of data that demonstrates its truth (so far as truth can be known).