General Discussion

Their paper or research just has to meet evidentiary and procedural standards to be taken seriously and go through a full review.
There is very little gatekeeping; but if someone obnoxiously conspiratorial does find evidence of something real, there are less fringy real scientists who might be willing to look at that evidence and bring it forward for review
For instance, I've seen a lot of possibly contradictory theories on the process of future AMOC deterioration - or if it can be recovered based on current climate studies. Neither right nor wrong in themselves, the theories are based on evidence and context - which means there's still no "90 minutes until the movie ends" for the hero(s) to make the final, definitive answers or decisions that will fix the problem and save the world.
There is no one answer or outcome in science, no matter how hard people try to say "there, we fixed it, let's put it away and go on with our lives".
Science Evolves. Technology Evolves. Thinking and Ideas Evolve. People Evolve. Situations Evolve.

Nothing ever just stops and goes away.