first of all, how many scientists did you query before you wrote the line, "scientists who report facts about the climate that are not in line with the mainstream message of climate alarmism, are systemically marginalized."

is there a reason they are marginalized? did you look at who backs their paycheck? who supports their research? maybe their science is flawed by their desire to hold the divergent opinion in order to sell more books? what percentage of scientists fall in line with the mainstream vs the marginalized few, and what does that tell us?

it's always good to check history and sources, and to look at why someone might be shouted down by their own peers

Ross McKitreck aligns with Exxon Mobil. He advocated for the North American pipeline from Canada to the Gulf, which is problematic in the extreme, and wrote this surprising comment;

“[B]lockading pipeline resource development is neither a smart nor sustainable approach to pursuing environmental goals,” McKitrick said. “Completion of an interprovincial pipeline would be a boost for national unity and economic development, and it would be entirely consistent with the smart, technology-driven approach to environmental management that we have successfully pursued for many decades.”

He isn't talking about environmental goals, he is talking about business goals. He is talking about whats good for the economy, not for the environment. The NAPL puts the environment at risk with the danger of contamination to the Ogallala Aquifer, a shared water resource under several US states. Sure the risk might be minimal, but once the damage is done, how do you reverse it? Millions of families and businesses rely on that water for their daily needs.

Another statement from Ross McKittrick, "scientist":

“We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”

Carbon dioxide IS a pollutant when it is out of proportion to plants and trees ability to utilize it. A surplus of carbon dioxide creates an overabundance of greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, causing ice caps to melt and ocean levels to rise, which causes flooding. Any scientist knows that. Yet this guy dismisses it as unimportant. Probably because governments dont want to piss off big business, who would be the major players in reducing CO2 emissions.

If you present facts in a skewed way to support your opinion, then present it as science, that is not fact. It's bullshit.

RM was on the panel to advise President Trump how to put a positive spin when Trump dismantled the EPA. And you wonder why he is marginalized? He advocates for big business. He isnt an environmentalist, he is just someone who has a degree in Environmental science and uses it to coat his own pockets by holding a position politicians and business men use to counteract public opinion.

This is why he is being marginalized, imho.