It's extremely difficult for a global warming skeptic to get published in scientific journals because the decision-makers are beholden in one way or another to the global warming movement. This is why we've yet to see a fair and honest debate of this issue. What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
As far as my experience goes, papers just get submitted and then go into the peer-review process. If a paper comes down to the level of discourse we're seeing in these blogs, it won't get published, but if it contains some valid science, I see no reason why it wouldn't get published. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.
> What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
Yes. This is both unfortunate and as it should be. It's unfortunate for the scientific debate. The level of discourse has dropped dramatically because of the politicisation.
On the other hand, scientists have been researching this for many years. The scientific debate has been ongoing for at least that long. Their conclusions do have a strong effect on policy. Political decisions have to be made about how to handle the issue.[1] Such policy-making has already started years ago and lead to the Kyoto Accord in 1997. So we're more in the political phase than we are in the scientific phase. 90% politics is probably as it should be right now.
[1] You can read this as "how to handle the issue if at there is an issue" if you want. It doesn't change what I'm saying.
