Quadrant Online - Peer review locks gate - David Archibald

As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant.
...
The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace. There are two ways to break the power of the corrupted establishment. In the first instance stop subscribing to journals that have promoted the climate fraud. If you work in any sort of academic establishment, it is your responsibility to the nation to recommend to your librarian that the subscription to Nature not be renewed. Secondly, we need more online journals so that good work can more easily find a home. This would increase the rate of creative destruction in the journal space.

Climate Scare Flim-Flam

The anthropologists/geologists agree that global warming and cooling trends have been a part of earth-stuff since the beginning. According to them, glaciers at one time reached into Kentucky and the tropical forest of the Amazon at another time(s) was on the perimeter of the Arctic Circle. Then, these guys come along and fraudulently push the panic button, as if they could actually do anything about Mother Nature. Weird! They can't even get the three-day forecast right much of the time.

Today’s Double-Speak Translation | Climate Skeptic

From past experience in other locations (see this post on New Zealand and the US), the adjustments to the raw data tend to drive 80-100% of the global warming signal.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Weird science: East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data

The bullying atmosphere in Academia on AGW has ruined the credibility of the effort — and not just at the University of East Anglia. Any PhD student in the field would have known on which side the bread would be buttered, and would be unlikely to commit career suicide by producing contradictory data. The actions of the IPCC authors created an atmosphere of groupthink, paranoia, and toadyism, not science or truth. Any results coming from this arena have to be entirely suspect.

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.