What? You don't think the Judge who had a hard time squeaking by in "Rocks for Jocks" should make scientific decisions?
The one who thought "Political Science" was a hard science?
C'mon man!
And yes, when you have the people who do the reviewing, you control what is 'peer reviewed' and published.
Building a 'consensus' is easy from there on.
But the opposition, those who have continued to 'do' good science, has been there all along (since before the "Oregon Petition" with 34,000+ scientists asking the US to NOT sign on to the Kyoto Accords), just hidden behind the fog of Media who sensationalistically promote panic for the sake of getting viewers to the screen and filling column inches to bring in ad revenues.
While this has been a ridiculous money drain on industry, testing even American scientists and engineers' abilities to innovate, moving industry out of the country, and cutting through sectors of our economy like a hailstorm through a wheat crop, it is good to finally see the Narrative challenged. I just hope enough data has survived the adjustments, massaging, and editing to provide a basis for clear scientific inquiry.