It is true that science makes mistakes as part of its growing process, but the implied conclusion does not follow at all and further it is unclear who the "dissenters" are in that article. There is far more obvious error and fraud from the countless and clueless armchair climate amateurs, and also from vested interests, such as the fossil fuel company supported self-proclaimed "Institute of Public Affairs". The dissenters that comprised the Inqusition were probably not "celebrated" by Gallileo, and certainly didn't provide "the best kind of quality assurance" (unless perhaps the author thinks that the sun revolves around the earth).

Good scientists are efficient at quickly recognising and dismissing obviously bogus arguments, which is necessary to avoid being bogged down in the tried and trusted filibustering of science by vested interests

As for the rest of us, we must trust in the a consensus coming from climate scientists, or become climate scientists ourselves. However, not everyone has time to become a specialist in every scientific area relating to an environmental issue. This is how science does and must work - an intricate network of trust and interdependency between the fields of research.

The author mentions transparency, but offers no evidence or references to back up their (hinted at) claim that data is not presented fully, methods not given, or computer code is not available. If they should pry open a climate research journal, are they likely to understand what is written there I wonder. If not, how have they made this conclusion - by trusting the opinion of "dissenters" with a more agreeable view?

The "best" quality assurance in science has always been independent testing of theories & models by other appropriately qualified scientists in the field (this is how cold fusion was debunked). This is happening ad nauseum for climate change, and confirming that some of the most pessimistic models are true. However, those that simply don't want to believe the results continually dismiss the masses of evidence by constructing intricate conspiracy theories or crazy explanations, quite contrary to good scientific method.