Alric do I have to break out the emails about blocking skeptics from the peer review process? We all know thats what they did
I'd like to see that too, No one can block anyone from publishing papers on a journal. From the emails all you can see is a group of coauthor deciding not to publish in a journal because of contrarian tendencies.
Maybe he's complaining about denialist papers being rejected from peer-reviewed journals when those papers fail to pass scientific muster.
If ones looks at the journals, one will see publications that tend to support 'the concensus' (if you like) in climate change research, and others that oppose it. Most recently I could mention a new estimate of Alaskan glacier melt over the last 40 years reduced by about 50%. It's in Nature Geoscience. OTOH if one relies on climate blogs (pro or con), they might not realize this. Really, it's up to you to form your opinions on these matters.
The conclusion from the study you mention. "Ice loss from Alaskan glaciers since 1962 is evidently smaller than previously thought. However, thinning (sometimes over 10 m/year, as in the Columbia glacier) and glacial retreat remain considerable. Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid-1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise." It is not up to "you" to "make up your mind". You either accept the scientific consensus, come up with new data or simply become a denier.
