As far as I can tell, they have done the following:
- Forced editors out of journals for allowing skeptical science to be published.
- Removed journals from the lists of accredited publications.
- Stuffed the review process with their cronies and acolytes.
Irrespective of whether the skeptical science (or even the alarmist science) was good or bad, this created an unacceptable bias in the outcomes that were published. And it makes an absolute mockery of alarmists who have smugly claimed that "our science has been through the rigour of peer review, whereas the deniers can't even find someone to publish them", doesn't it?
Can you imagine if all tobacco research had to be peer reviewed by scientists known to be in the pocket of "big tobacco"? Scientists would be up in arms, yet here it's considered somehow OK.
It strikes at the very heart of contemporary science, because if Jones et al could do it this easily over such a highly visible subject, who knows where else the peer review process has been subverted for gain? (Although, to be fair, nowhere else has so much taxpayer money been on the table, so it's probably unlikely that anyone would have had the incentive in any other field of endeavour.)