The labeling of groups in America has been over the last 100 years increasingly replacing baseball as the Great American pastime.

Meanwhile, the politicization of science has replaced objective science ever since the narrative of global warming was introduced; whenever that was.

You said you want peer review, but how can you have that if those who approach their inquiry as if global warming could be caused by factors other than or only minimally by the burning of fossil fuels are ignored or worse. If those who dare to dispute that it is caused either entirely or mostly by mankind are removed from their post, deprived of research funding and have any papers they publish go without peer review, then it’s entirely understandable that there would be so little contrary opinion. The need to publish or perish while facing the threat of no peer review is the equivalent of holding a gun to their head.

So you see, it’s real easy in academic circles to silence contrary opinion, when you can threaten those with the equivalent of academic suicide. Talk about political expediency. The Overton window is in its lowest setting, where scientists have the least amount of freedom to question the prevailing wisdom in my lifetime and perhaps as far back as since the turn of the previous century.

When the police are investigating a crime (metaphorically speaking, like global warming), if all the stories are too much alike then, those statements are suspected to be a coverup. Beyond that how can you have any dialogue if all contrary evidence is suppressed and those voices silenced. A one way conversation is not a dialogue but rather a monologue.