It’s clearly Yeadon who’s biased, or he’d publish in the scientific literature as scientists should rather than hinting directly to the public that science is a conspiracy. Delingpole has for decades consistently denigrated climate science as a conspiracy, so it’s unsurprising that he offered Yeadon some publicity. They appear to be collaborating in prioritising profit above human and ecological welfare by promoting public distrust of science. Both have made a lot of money from the current commercial system.
Publishing in the scientific literature and forums exposes propositions to expert scrutiny. Publishing directly to the public influences public opinion and behaviour without expert scrutiny. As such, it is a form of propaganda. Hinting that science is a conspiracy is an effective cover story for not publishing in the scientific domain.
Is this what you’re advocating Steph? Do you wish the public to be influenced by certain highly specialised arguments, insulated from the appropriate context which would provide equally technical scrutiny? If so, why?