text: Although it may sound a bit like sour grapes, heres the way that Ive rationalized Natures editorial decision. Ive become convinced that many of the editors of the high impact journals are inclined to cast opinion pieces as salvos in the ongoing war between climate change believers and skeptics. Articles like mine that take issue with the way in which the war is being waged are not particularly welcome. By soliciting opinion pieces and by selecting, from among the growing list of contributed articles, the very few that will be sent out for peer review, the editors promote their vision of what constitutes groundbreaking and policy relevant science. What if it is not the right vision?