@Dr Herbie: No, open to public scrutiny.
If a statistician like Stephen McIntyre points out statistical mistakes, he is obviously qualified and experienced, just not in climate science. Are you seriously saying that we should dismiss his voice because he has no relevant experience or a degree in climate science? Doesnt that strike you as odd?
Statisticians are part of the peer review process (it was standard practice at universities I attended to get a statistician to give your work the once-over before publishing and to query them on papers that you weren't sure about). When a qualified statistician takes an opinion, the scientific community listens, even if they don't agree with that opinion. However, as any statistician will agree, a sample size of one is not significant; when a large enough group of statisticians come to the same consensus then there should be an attempt to clarify the data to their satisfaction.
Burden of proof is on the proponents of the theory. I've been reading up on this subject for 5+ years now and I have yet to see compelling evidence that we are destroying the planet with CO2.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have to have a clean environment to live in. And I am opposed to polluting the environment (if we have alternative solutions) for personal gain, but I am not conviced emitting CO2 is a threat to the environment or the planet.
I'm not convinced you've spent 5+ years reading a balanced survey of the literature (and neither have I, I feel I should point out). I think you've spent time reading opinionated blogs that lead you to papers that back their opinions. To get a balanced view would take several weeks in a University library working full time, which I doubt anyone on this forum has done.
The burden of proof is on the proponents -- and so far the proof has been enough for the majority to accept it.
I'm afraid you have to earn the right to publish (by demonstrating that you know how to publish a solid scientific paper), just like you would have to earn the right to become an executive director in a company, or to be a newspaper editor; you can't just waltz up and claim expertise without building up credible experience.
EDIT : I don't see this as specifically about climate change, it's about how people perceive science being done -- might be climate change, homeopathy, creationism, or free radicals; the basic arguments about who you believe come down to how science gets done and whether you accept 'the scientific community'.