We could, then, at least discuss the legitimacy of the data and interpretation thereof without being labelled anti-science flat-earther conspiracy theorists, couldn't we?

So cynical (love it!)
"Huh, seems to be getting warmer every year. Let's invest in property in Northern Canada. Oh wow, we better help them fix their regressive ways. Don't want to invest in a failing country."

You don't believe in science. If the data doesn't give you support for your hypothesis to the point that accurate predictions can be made then the hypothesis is wrong. Belief is for religion not science.
Climate Alarmists just say "We are right, do as we say.", they don't discuss the point where they become wrong.