Call me crazy Tom, but in this "debate" I'll rely on the scepticism and biased free content of scientists over that of the industry supported crowd. You can be sceptical of the evil scientists mincing their hands over how to steer the data for approval by their culture and publishers. As for me, I'll remain sceptical of those who have to gain from the status quo, and haven't spent their lives in the pursuit of understanding physical phenomena, but in pursuit of money and towing some industry line.

I see you posted this article from the Telegraph again. Did you read the article I posted over on CE? I'm sure you know what it writes to be true....

As for the Telegraph article:

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

If this is the case, then where is the scandal? Where is the censorship if these are the statistics of publication. Seems fairly open to me. These numbers are in response to a similar study done by Oreskes et. al., a professor of science history that shows almost unanimity among these papers.

Listen, I'm not saying that there isn't a bias, there should be. Indications from theory, measurement, and computational studies all show a warming trend. Focusing on process and magnifying differing interpretations in the community is another way to distract from the trend of information continuing to arrive every day. Read the article I linked at the root of this thread as an example.

Also, having to face the zombies of various anti-science factions could've given the editors of Science and Nature a fortress mentality that detracts from the pure process of science review and publishing. Yes, everyone has an axe to grind. Some axes are used for assault and some are used in defense.