Attack the use of models in general and you deserve to be regarded as a crackpot not a serious scientist. That's what I see not some global hush conspiracy.

-Debate the accuracy of the data used in model-fair (and a few do).

-Argue with the form of an equation in the model-fair (haven't heard about any, but reasonable issue).

-Argue that a key factor has been ignored without simultaneously whining there are too many variables-fine (probably common even with regard to ones own work).

These are signs of serious scientific debate, not "climate models suck" or "its an environmentalist power grab". There is a huge documented history of people ignoring harm to others if it hampers profits around the world. Unions and environmental groups sprang up justifiably to fight this. Many have gone astray and become unreasonable PETA types or self sustaining beuracracies , but they have never had more power than industry. The only way to accurately judge the truth is follow the scientific method and evaluate the data and predictions. Trying to read the tea leaves of motivation is misguided even if there is plenty of history to cause distrust of industry. I don't however have a problem with public questioning the motives of individual "scientists" who use pseudoscience methods rather than those of science. That is a public policy debate not a scientific one. Any global warming advocate who challenges issues such as those above with conspiracy claims rather than data is also guilty of pseudoscience.

Regards,
Mark