Then start with those who choose to short circuit the process of reviewed science!
James Hansen, Heidi Cullen, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller have all made efforts to silence those who choose to even question anthropological global warming.
Bjorn Lonborg still believes in anthropological global warming, but is demonized because he believes that there are better ways to spend money on the environment.
Clearly this is not a scientific article, so please spare us from your self-important heroic "efforts." Nobody on the anti-GW side is suggesting that "its over", "end of discussion", "take away certification" or any other Stalinist notions that are designed to stop scientific discourse.
Have any of these three said anything indicating that there should be a suppression of properly-formulated climate science research of any kind in peer-reviewed journals? I think Hansen and Cullen would welcome that. I don't know what "efforts" by Hansen you are referring to. Cullen actually suggested that accredited meteorologists should know the basics of climate change science. Exact quote: "And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval." The right-wing attack on her interpreted this as a call for suppression of opposing views, when in fact she was -- clumsily -- advocating a better-informed meteorological community and by default, a better-informed public.
Clearly this is not a scientific article, so please spare us from your self-important heroic "efforts."
Clearly. But it's another example of giving far more credence to skeptical arguments (and arguers) against human-caused greenhouse gas warming than they are due.
Which makes oyu wonder if the people on the Algore side really believe that they have anywhere near as strong a case as they claim.