1. Science is not built on alleged consensus; furthermore, scientific observations on climate should involve real scientists not those with political science or engineering or other unrelated degrees.
2. Global warming does not even qualify to be an hypothesis (modeling is not an observation, and real world observations differ from modeling predictions).
3. Real scientists invite questions and are happy to produce data and all methods, algorithms, and notes.
4. Real scientists would insist on scientific symposia, inviting proponents on both sides to present and defend thoroughly a proposed hypothesis. Furthermore, proposed hypotheses must be rigorously TESTED, and if scientific approaches were legitimate, all should be invited to test thoroughly.
5. It follows that opposing opinion should be invited and considered in a collegial fashion. This is real science.
6. Real science publications should invite, encourage, and publish papers from divergent viewpoints. Not doing so is the very reciprocal of science.
.
As I scanned Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth book at the library, I was appalled that here was a non-scientist proclaiming scientific "fact" without a single bibliographic reference in the entire book!
I have a point about your Point 2. You said, "global warming does not even qualify to be a hypothesis". Why do you say that? Can't we hypothesize anything? And are you saying that modeling is not allowed?
Thanks.