Anybody who submits counter evidence is immediately labeled as a 'denialist' rather than taken seriously, which is part of the problem. Also methane is another very weak greenhouse gas, and the response doesn't account for what atomic absorption spectroscopy shows. The big greenhouse gas is water vapor. The peer reviewed publications are looked at by other climatologists, it's just an echo chamber, any counter-evidence is immediately discarded as denialism for example the 2003 paper which tried to discredit the hockey stick graph which did actually get a response though much of it was name calling. The vast majority of climate models haven't worked out though, which recently caused a big controversy because they couldn't account for the heating that was predicted but didn't show up in the atmosphere. They later found it in the oceans however, which have been acting as a massive heat sink, which one and only one model predicted and it wasn't the one they expected.