Science is not about consensus. It's about skepticism and review and dialogue. There should be no reason to shun controversial views just because they are controversial. If you think they are wrong, then say why they are wrong.
> If you think they are wrong, then say why they are wrong.
Climate scientists have already responded to the claims in question in writing. The ideas aren't being shunned because they are controversial. They are being shunned because they are bogus.
I agree with you. I'm not shunning the controversial views, but rather the publication classifying them as such. Before even presenting those views, no less.
