In this case, the background required isn't really about climatology, but just to judge whether a conclusion points in one direction or another. That is something that we can probably participate in, even without any climatological background.

But that also limits the breadth of our conclusion. We can infer that the papers all point in the same direction, but we can't rule out the possibility that contradictory papers have been systematically excluded.

It seems to me "common sense" that a conspiracy that universal and pervasive is effectively impossible, especially given that the motives suggested for it are absurd. But "common sense" isn't an argument, and many people "do their own research" and conclude that such a conspiracy is not only likely but certain.