Yes, lets look at the Discover interview...
In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.†How did you react?
I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me, “This is something that you should not have done.†That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.
So it’s difficult to do climate research without being suspected of having a hidden agenda?
Yes, it is frustrating. People can use this however they want, and I can’t stop them. Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some are saying I’m doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I think there’s a huge interest in discrediting what I’m doing, but I’ve sort of gotten used to this. I’ve convinced myself the only thing I can do is just to continue doing good science. And I think time will show that we are on the right track.
THAT is the sum total of hat he says in regards to your claim in that 4 page article. He doesn't claim that he has been prevented from publishing, nor does he claim he has been stopped from doing his work... In fact, he talks of using equipment at CERN to test his ideas both in the Discover article and elsehere...
He says that its been difficult to get funding towards the end, but he doesnt blame it on a conspiracy- you will find damn few scientist claiming that they get the funding they deserve!
How does this support your claim in ANY way?
Add to that the fact that Peiser has had to retract the guts of his claims, and now admits there is a scientific consensus and you have NOTHING.
AGAIN, how are your arguments different from the fake moon landing crowd?