I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.

Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up
This is a really good argument.