emphasize the need for healthy debate (when there really is none)

What does "emphasize the need for healthy debate (when there really is none)" mean?

Does it mean "when there really is no need for a debate, the industry pretends there is need for debate and such a debate is healthy for public?

Thanks in anticipation

Context:

Industry’s war against science isn’t limited to climate change. A host of public relations campaigns over the last five decades have spent billions of dollars with the express purpose of sowing public doubt about science. The techniques are usually the same: highlight cherry-picked facts provided by paid physicians or scientists whose alternative conclusions support your agenda; emphasize the need for healthy debate (when there really is none); attack the integrity of mainstream science and scientists; emphasize the negative consequences of tackling the problem; feed stories to sympathetic journalists (or purchase a news outlet); fund “Astroturf” groups to create the illusion of grassroots support; call for “balance”; and give money to lawmakers who will vote your way.

Source: A Plan to Defend against the War on Science