Recently on my post about the crackpot scientists who claimed (though naturally not in a peer-reviewed journal) that Mars was warming up and thus climate change here on earth was not caused by humans but rather by the sun, I received a comment claiming that the reason there are no peer-reviewed articles is because any resercher who’s findings go against the scientific consensus are automatically not published.
While these claims are not new I figured it was worth calling attention and demonstrating why such claims simply do not hold water.
Of course what those who make this argument fail to tell, is that it is almost impossible to get a paper reviewed by the official channels if it opposes the current status quo which feeds the gravy train of research grants, eminent Career positions and fame
That is not how peer review works. If it were it would not be useful as the established medium for scientific debate. Scientific debate depends on being able to seriously look at new ideas even if they challenge the status quo. Journals gain recognition by publishing controversial articles (assuming that they meet the rigorous standards required to be published in the first place). This is where most of the anti-climate change ‘research’ falls short; it may be good enough to fool the general public but it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny, and thus is not published. The same thing goes for researchers, they gain recognition when they discover something new, not by agreeing to the status quo. A young researcher who can successfully challenge an established theory (again his arguments need to stand up to scientific scrutiny) will gain almost instant recognition, and spur many debates in the literature.
The reason that this has not happened with climate change is simple; there have been no contradictions to the consensus that humans are causing climate change that have stood up to scientific scrutiny. Thus they have not been published. There is no grand conspiracy to silence critics.