I'd say both, really. I realise that having a lot of people think something doesn't make it right, but if you show your idea to enough people, at some point you start to think that all the holes must have been found by at least one of the eyes that looked at it.
As I said, its a classical logical fallacy.
Its not valid thinking. So... if that's your position, your position is indefensible.
The process is very transparent. Even with the whole "climategate" bullshit a few years ago, there was nothing that wasn't open and honest apart from a couple of informal emails using words that the MSM didn't like. To be accepted to a science journal or conference you need to be doing science, not just spouting a conspiracy theory.
There were computer programs that were getting their papers into journals and into conferences so I don't know what you think you're talking about.
The system is never perfect. It can't be perfect.
All that can keep it honest is transparency and public scrutiny. Journals are not transparent... and whatever you might feel of the openness of the issue... it isn't open enough for people like me.
Would it be so bad to just give me what I want? I don't want to tell anyone what to think. I merely want enough access to these things that I feel comfortable with the way they are run.
Nothing more or less.
Your job isn't meaningless because your manager is trying to get himself more power. Sport isn't less fun because a player went to another team for a bullshit reason. Just like carbon dioxide won't magically change it's IR spectrum because some greedy politicians are sticking their noses in.
If you want me to sign off on programs that will cost trillions of dollars and give power over myself to various agencies... I must trust them.
So long as they are obvious political agents that financially profit from the issue I can't trust them. The conflict of interest is too great. Surely you must see that.
Lets reverse the issue around so maybe you might grasp the problem.
Lets say that democrats/socialists/various left of center groups were against doing anything about global warming. And that Republicans/capitalists/various right of center groups were for doing something about global warming.
Just for the sake of argument... Now lets say those groups started getting very excited about it. And they proposed a big plan to fix the world. And buried in all those plans they basically claimed a lot of power for their factions, made their allies rich, and screwed over their opposition.
Would you sign off on that or resist it?
Do you perhaps begin to see the problem? The AGW movement has been hijacked.
Until the hijackers are removed it will not be treated as legitimate.
End of line.