What you wrote was, in my view, an irresponsible spread of misinformation.

A look at the source of the content you presented will verify its prejudiced origins even if one ignores, (and of course one cannot if serious about validity), the depth and breadth of evidence that shows the reality of climate change and human contributions to it.

However, I regret that some platform mediators consider that blocking is a desirable way to go, though it may be in some situations.

I far prefer that, as long as they are not personally abusive, even strong or controversial opinions be allowed full expression.

My view on how to treat such is to allow rational debate or argument for I subscribe to the old adage: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

My own view is that when misinformation or disinformation is disseminated, whether deliberately or accidentally, the best form of mediation would be annotation and/or references to multiple sources that are clearly identified, from a variety of standpoints and which offer verifiable evidence with validity of methodology.

However, I don't run Medium and, as are you, am simply a contributor. Misinformation and disinformation are a major impediment to sound judgment of issues and, given the ubiquitous tendency of most to 'believe what they read' and the relative rarity of those who are well-informed and capable of critical evaluation, those two perversions of truth can be and often are extremely destructive.

I don't therefore, consider Medium's action to be as you describe it but rather an attempt to ensure that the platform does not become synonymous with nor complicit in allowing severe distortions and outlandish assertions to be promoted.

As I've said, I consider that there may be better ways of achieving that aim but I respect the values behind the aim of the action.

Take care. Stay safe. ☮️