Idk man.. seems to me the skeptics spend all day and night conceding and it's never enough for the alarmists.

They're branded as "Deniers" and ridiculed and bullied into silence or smeared into pariah status. I haven't actually seen evidence for the inverse. Do you have any?

To say "the activists are terrified to enter into genuine dialogue" seems to me to be evidence of the opposite of what you're saying here. Its inviting a debate, not shutting it down. It may not be a particularly nice way to invite debate but it is nonetheless an invitation. A challenge.

The skeptics seem to say "look at this evidence, what do you have to say about this you idiot?" Which is not very nice indeed. But at least it invites a debate.

But the alarmists on the other hand say things like "look at this evidence, now shut up and do what I say because I'm trying to save you, you idiot" Which may be well intentioned, but is also not very nice, and shits down debate.

You don't hear skeptics saying absurd things like "settled science" or the tell-tale signs of trying to shut down debate like appeals to authority "99% of scientists..."

You may not like the style in which the skeptics express themselves, which is fine, but that's different from claiming that they shut down the conversation, that's simply not true. They're the ones opening the conversation.