J. Clarke writes:

No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers.
Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.

And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their
viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?

First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. But
of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the
government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the
paper.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061

"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "

"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.