Richard Pearson wrote:This is where 'climate change science' is so different - proponents of 'climate change science' shut down debate, refuse to publish papers not part of the 'consensus' view - even when there is clearly no such consensus among qualified scientists in the particular field or among interested scientifically literate people not involved in the field. They refuse to share data for checking. They conveniently lose data when legitimate requests or legal demands are made to produce it - the IPCC's Phil Jones who lost British met data after FOI applications and the IPCC's Michael Mann of Penn State Univ with his fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph based on questionable tree ring data that he refused to give up for verification - are good examples.

Seeing no value in pseudo-debate with agenda driven loonies is not shutting down debate; you just feel shut out because you have nothing to contribute.
papers that are not part of the 'consensus' view are not published because there are no results that fit your preconceived word view.
I'm sorry,Google Galileos like you are not scientifically literate
And you still spout the repeatedly falsified notion about conspiracy and incompetence among people you hate.
All these memes are so familiar to me: I hear them from creationists, from expanding earthers, from anti-vaxxers - Oh you don't like to be lumped in with other anti-science loons? Well don't employ their tactics.

Richard Pearson wrote:That the Greenhouse Effect theory defies the second law of thermodynamics is easy to demonstrate.

Ah yes, the 2nd Law violation wild card: it's the Godwin's Law of cargo cult science discussions.