Two posts from Climate Resistance fit the bill nicely. The first draws a useful of analogy to address the misleading characterizations endorsed by ideological environmentalists who seek to re-cast the discussion in terms favourable to their assertion of authority and self-justification: which, of course, is the source of so many objections to the climate dogma by social scientists in the first place.
Yes, many who question the consensus on climate science do so not because they question the science per se, they question the selective, ideological use of that science, the politicization of science within the climate discussion: and the application of politics to, and within, science is certainly the domain of social scientists and other academics. Asserting opinion and ignoring empirical data that contradict one's hypothesis is not science: you do not need a specific specialization on any scientific discipline to identify these activities, you just need the inclination to ask the question.
The second post offers a useful deconstruction of the Bali conference, which did little except establish the timetable for the next couple of expenses-paid vacations, sorry conferences, on climate. The Bali conference was rife with hypocrisy and ideological assertions masking a real frustration that simply jumping up and down and stomping one's feet in a temper tantrum no longer seems to be working as a mechanism for garnering world focus in real political terms. And that's not science either. Sadly, neither is it particularly democratic nor enlightened, which is why the Bali conference may well turn out to be the nadir of the whole climate change debate.
update: see this post which also shows that the debate is all about politics, especially in the blogosphere