Rick, I'd like to echo Alex's admiration for your podcasts. The fact that we differ about "climate change" (for which I prefer to use the term CAGW, short for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is an issue upon which I think well-meaning people on both sides can differ.
First off, I don't think there's any point our arguing on the basis of the science. You think one way, and I think another, and so far there's probably nothing that will change either of our views. But just for the record, here's a twelve-minute video I've posted elsewhere on Skeptiko that summarises my current viewpoint:
I'll leave the science of CAGW at that and concentrate more on the sociology of the issue. In many ways, you are someone who thinks in ways that are at odds with what Western society as a whole thinks. You are free to do that and so far as I know, don't suffer any organised censure for your podcasts. Not censure, at any rate, that could threaten your reputation or livelihood.
CAGW isn't the only issue that can threaten people's reputation or livelihood. There are others, for instance Intelligent Design. I myself can't say for sure that life is consciously designed, but I do know that the arguments against Neo-Darwinism made by ID proponents (many of whom, like me, agree that evolution occurs) such as Stephen Meyer, Doug Axe and Michael Behe are scientifically convincing. Also, as I have a degree and some research experience in zoology, I can actually understand the subject more than I can climate science -- where I have to accept some things on the word of people I respect: such as Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. I daresay you're in the same position in that you accept the word of scientists who are CAGW proponents.
As Jim Smith points out above, there is currently much cause for concern in the way that science is conducted in a number of areas such as Cosmology and Medicine. There are quite a number of specific topics where if one wants to get on in one's chosen field, one has to tow the line or risk ostracism -- or, in extremis, loss of one's job. Orthodox scientific views say:
HIV causes AIDS
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) probably don't exist
Neo-Darwinism explains evolution
Statins lower cholesterol, hence are useful in treating heart attacks and strokes
Homeopathy is ridiculous
NDEs and psychic phenomena in general are all either misinterpretations or fraud
Gravity (and not, e.g. electromagnetism) is the most important factor in cosmology
Mind is a product of brain
I could list more, but amongst those, hopefully there'll be one or more things that you take an unorthodox stance on. The question I would start out by asking you is, how do you justify your unorthodox stance in such areas despite (claimed) scientific consensuses against them? Does your taking such a stance mean that you are anti-science and a denier of reality? Or does it rather mean that as an intelligent person, you have weighed the evidence and personally found it wanting?