Edit
The British Royal Society, has always been so old fashioned and dogmatic, often favouring the science from nobility and excluding science from lower class people, defintely not an open minded society.
There are hundreds of journals, so if people think they've done good science and can't get it published in the journal they like, they try somewhere else. That's what scientists normally do. Peer review can be frustrating, but whining about it in public is probably a sign that they didn't write a good paper in the first place.
I've been an author of controversial papers before--one paper didn't get published until the third try (in Foundations of Physics). I didn't publicly complain about it, we just kept working. In the atmospheric sciences a large percentage of papers are rejected, and for the most part these papers aren't about AGW. If your paper gets rejected, suck it up, improve the paper and move on. Publicly whining about it just makes you seem like a loser.
Let's suppose I don't accept the existence of the Higgs Boson. I now believe that the peer review system is biased. The papers being published maintain the view of 'mainstream' science and actively ignore anything to the contrary. The reviewers are biased gatekeepers suppressing all evidence that does not conform with the existence of the Higgs Boson.
Having now set up my argument, I have a few problems. How do I accommodate the fact that lots of papers seem to predict and experimentally show the existence of the Higgs Boson? Well, three ways. I can argue that there are equal numbers of papers for and against, just the against papers aren't being published because of the bias of reviewers. Or I can argue that there is a group-think and scientists are towing the line, and misinterpreting their results on the basis of an inherent bias towards the Higgs boson. Or I can argue that there is a deliberate conspiracy of particle physicists, wanting research grants, to argue for the existence of the Higgs Boson so they can keep their research and livelihoods going.
I don't have to look at the science in favor of the Higgs Boson. I merely now need to find scientists who disagreed and quote them. I find papers that weren't published and use those as 'evidence' that my view is correct. Here was scientist X, whose paper was never published, and they said the Higgs Boson didn't exist, and this is proof that everything I said was true.
The point is that this sort of argument can be applied to anything. Climate science? Yes, papers against AGW are being suppressed. Alternative therapies? Yes, papers showing that waving crystals over people can cure them are being suppressed by the mainstream medical journals. Evolution? Yes, papers showing the flaws with that theory are being suppressed by mainstream biologists. Paranormal abilities, like telekinesis and psychic abilities like predicting the future? Yes, papers on those topics are being suppressed by mainstream scientists. And so on ...
Once you begin an argument that starts 'mainstream science is suppressing research to the contrary' you can now justify anything you want to believe in. You don't have to read any of the thousands of 'mainstream' science papers because your argument is 'they're a) flawed b) misinformed c) downright lies'. You can instantly dismiss anything contrary to your view. You find papers supporting your view, that weren't published, and you can use that as 'proof' your view is correct, and that people are suppressing the very science that shows your belief is correct.
Once you start down that path, forever will it consume your destiny! You can believe anything you want and justify it on the basis that it's being suppressed. You don't prove that mainstream science is wrong, all you do to maintain your view is find instances of papers that weren't published that supported your view. This allows you to ignore the majority of papers, focus on the minority, and yet use that minority as justification and proof your opinion was correct.
And we've seen exactly this sort of argument be used for the topics I mentioned before. It is a common approach in all areas of pseudo-science. It is a common approach in Creationism.
Peer review is needed to keep the message on track. The message that so-called "global warming" is true is so important that no other scientific person should be able to review the paper unless of course they agree to approve the paper before they read it.
I dunnoe. But there are lots of semi-reviewed, or non reviewed places for them.
The question should be are there any credible papers that rebut AGW?
I suspect the source for your claim, since you don't cite them, exist only in your imagination. That's not how science woks
Stubby Phillips, that was the point of the question. That they are keeping out papers that reject.
the latest IPCC report contained rebuttals to the global warming theories, but are also being suppressed by the IPCC.
Ken Ham
If someone had real evidence, it would not be possible to suppress it. And they would not rely on ad homs
The latest IPCC report cites a paper that claims extinctions due to global warming, which itself cites another paper referring to the extinction of a species of snail. A rebuttal was written to this paper, but the Royal Society said the reviewers rejected it, the same reviewers who reviewed the original paper. From the rebuttal'We predict rediscovery when resources permit'. Now seven years later, the species in fact has been rediscovered.
Any other papers that biased reviewers and journals are keeping out?
there is no suppression. did you consider that the rejection was due to bad science?
Censorship in science is criminal.
