You have expressed your dissatisfaction with the quality of public debate on climate change, saying it "borders on appalling" and the level of scientific literacy among politicians is "not high".
To this point we both agree 100%. I have no idea what I'm talking about on matters climate.
But every interview, doorstop, press release, opinion piece and discussion I have with constituent and political colleagues I express a desire for a climate debate based solely on rhetoric and consensus politics.
I found your criticism of “climate deniers” as extremely unhelpful generally, and found it interesting that if you know nothing about climate change, apparently, you are not allowed to criticize the science.
You have also stated “They deserve to have their views considered if they’ve gone through the proper and scientific process and it’s ended up in the peer review literature.”
You cannot state that only people who can be countenanced criticising climate change and its debate are those contributing peer reviewed papers - what about bloggers and talk back hosts and other people who aren't scientists? Are they not allowed to make up their own science?