I've read reports that said they have a hard time getting published. Even in the post here they said they lost grants because they weren't toeing the party line anymore.
Hard time getting published usually means that their articles are bogus. Assume for a moment that they don't get published for political reasons. Then you would expect there to be a lot of good quality research being done written up in high quality articles that don't get published. Scientists would not accept that, they would put their work on their home pages together with the flawed referee reports.
Of course, in reality there is no research that proves the consensus view wrong. There are no articles that report on that. There are just unfounded criticism that are published in newspapers like the Wall Street Journal. The readers of these newspapers don't have a clue about how science works in practice.
Not getting grants would put the scientists with alternative views at a disadvantage, but it doesn't explain why no publishable material has been produced by these nay sayers. I guess that'S then the very reason why such people cannot get grants, because scientists are expected to be productive and not waste their time writing nonsensical comments on their personal blogs or in the Wall Street Journal.
