I said that automatically rejecting any dissenting opinion is more in line with dogma than science.

That sounds exactly like the sputtering protests of conspiracy, from the Cydonuts and other anomalists, that HabZone was created to get away from.

So-called science magazines...

Nature and Science? Merely the two leading English-language scientific journals on the planet... and what would you propose in their place?

...that reject out of hand any other opinions (also by scientists) are not behaving in accordance with the scientific method. Too bad you can't separate that from your political views.

Too bad you can't separate the role of the scientific journal from that of the scientific investigator. I have some experience assisting investigators in the preparation and submission of manuscripts to such journals, and I suggest that you examine the submission guidelines of a representative handful -- here, for instance, are the instructions for Science. In brief, peer review is only one of the criteria any paper must satisfy before it is published.

Without the original text of the papers mentioned in the Telegraph article, it would be impossible to determine what flaws prevented them from being accepted. It is rather telling that the article gives only Peiser's and Bray's interpretation of their rejection letters, and not the text of the letters themselves. In other words, you have nothing but the whines of the rejected upon which to base your assertion that their (or any others') papers were "rejected out of hand".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

-- from the Telegraph article (link in Tom's original post), emphasis added