This sort of thing is the exact reason why global warming is not science. It’s the antithesis of science, and a climate in which any dissent is shot down is an affront to the scientific method. If scientists cannot have a free debate over the merits of a theory, then that theory is no longer operating on scientific terms, but as religious conviction. The argument that there is absolutely no room for doubt on global warming is an abject falsity — there is plenty of scientific debate about whether the warming trend is anthropogenic or not, and if so to what extent. Yet global warming proponents seem to want to destroy any attempt to crash their precious “consensus” and introduce challenging opinions.
That isn’t science. Science is about debate and skepticism, and the global warming debate is about blind belief and fanaticism. Real scientists don’t feel the need to use Inquisition tactics against skeptics of a particular theory. Real scientists don’t need to engage in acts of scientific censorship or launch broad ad hominem attacks against prominent skeptics.
All of these traits are indicative of a system of belief that has come unrooted from the skeptical tradition of hard science and become innately political and in many ways religious. Even if the pro-global warming forces happen to be right — even if the climate is warming and human activity is to blame — it does not excuse the way in which this “debate” is being carried out.