The peer reviewed literature has spoken

ABC appears to be lumbered with a denialist Chairman, so it's perhaps only to be expected that they have promoted the foil-hat conspiracy theories of McLean regarding the rejection of his nonsensical attempt at a reply.

Now Stephan Lewandowsky has a good article up on the ABC site on the topic, discussing how peer-reviewed literature is fallible but still paints an overwhelming picture on climate change:

"The article by McLean and colleagues is a perfect example of the fallible but self-correcting nature of peer reviewed science.

Although the authors loudly proclaimed to the media that their work shows that 'no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation' and that it 'leaves little room for any warming driven by human emissions', these claims have now been shown to be wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst.

The Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of Mr McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand.

This rebuttal uncovered numerous errors and, most crucially, it unambiguously showed that the paper by McLean and colleagues permitted no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof.

None.

Peer reviewed science is fallible but self-correcting."

Go and read the whole thing - and add a comment too.