[UnderseaLcpl]

This "suppression" is actually amazingly common. It happens in business, politics, and even science. Generally, there is some agenda behind it.
Just look at teachers' unions that lobby against parent choice in school districts. Do parents benefit from not having a choice of schools? Of course not, but the union does, because if parents had a choice, teachers would have to work harder and be more effective. But tell that to the teachers. Not many people any would go about saying that a lot of our teachers and schools aren't worth the paper we pay them with, because they would be accused of jeapordizing our childrens' futures. Ask just about anyone if they favor more funding for education. The answer is virtually always a yes. We have the union lobby to thank for that, despite their consistent failure to provide adequate education in America.

There is quite a bit of big business support for environmental regulation as well. The reason for that is that regulation is harmful to new business, a.k.a. competition, whilst also being good for publicity. Now everyone "knows" that global warming is a fact. They "know" that mankind caused it. They "know" that we can do something about it.

Even scientists are not immune to that kind of behavior. Plenty of "junk" science has been peddled to the media, and then to the public over the years. It is often accompanied by alarmism and defamation of the opposite side of the argument. And it often works.

If the theory of man-made global warming (and measures to combat it) is good science, why do they oppose debate? Why are their arguments often so charged with morality and emotion and fear (It's for the children! We can't take chances! etc. etc.)
Given other examples of the same kind of behavior, I think there is an agenda, even if that agenda is only the validation of a particular line of work.

Perhaps the IPCC will protest this move, which would restore some of their credibility in my eyes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.