The Wall Street Journal is running a three-part series on the threat to science caused by "confirmation bias" -- the tendency to seek out and/or read only things that reinforce existing opinions.
Part II is devoted to climate science.
For constructive critics, this is the problem with modern climate science. They don't think it's a conspiracy theory, but a monopoly that clings to one hypothesis (that carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming) and brooks less and less dissent. Again and again, climate skeptics are told they should respect the consensus, an admonition wholly against the tradition of science.
The column goes on to say,
The late novelist Michael Crichton, in his prescient 2003 lecture criticizing climate research, said: "To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global-warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models.... No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world—increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality."
The vast majority of climate science is based on models that have been proven to be unreliable. It really is an Alice-in-Wonderland world.
I highly recommend the entire column which is here.