Spindoc: 1. I deliberately chose to reference not the scientists themselves but the organisations and independent enquiries which have enquired into their work. If you think these are biased are you arguing thus?: Rowan only cites biased sources in support of AGW. We know they are biased because they support AGW. 2. The scientists are already getting together in the refereed journals as they always have. Some papers suggest AGW is a big problem, others that it is less so. If AGW is overthrown it will come from papers in this literature. It might happen like this: one paper reports an increase in a particular algae in the polar oceans; another attributes the increase to ocean acidification; a third points out that years ago a paper noted that areas of the ocean where this algae blooms reflects more sunlight back into space. Put them together and you have a negative feedback loop. Why wouldn’t Nature publish all of these papers if the science was good? 3. I’m not trying to play your game as you describe it. I’m trying to be reasonable given the evidence (which is all we can ask of scientists as well). If it turns out I’m right, good. If I’m wrong, even better! I don’t have shares in nuclear power or wind or solar power companies, and I like flying and driving my car.
All: thanks for reading and commenting. May you all have a Goldilock's Christmas - not too hot, not too cold, but just right - regardless of the forecast!

Michael, taking your points. 1. It is the fault of peer review because its closed architecture allows people to create that impression. Furthermore publishers exploit that to try to increase the standing of their journal.
2.No, this paper is about the peer review process. The fact that more than half the papers published are wrong says that peer review is not particularly good at weeding problem papers out. Open argument is what does that. Meaning that:
3. is supported.
4. Is supported by the facts. Read the Climate gate emails rather than relying on the secondary sources.
5. My doctor pulls his diagnosis from a diversity of sources, I'd hope he'd go to the most current, which given the speed at which open publishing works woud be likely to be wikisurgery. I've seen some rubbish come out of Lancet.

If you want to look at the new paradigm at work you can see one example, and references to others at http://www.egu.eu/publications/statement/initiatives-and-comments.html

When I say "new" in some ways it is like the old Royal Society method where one would orally deliver a paper and be examined on it. That's the system under which Darwin's theory was first presented to the Linnaen Society.

Open review has benefits over the current system of peer review in that it is quick and much more democratic, and is obviously contestable.

Michael, you might also be interested in this from my morning reading. "Classical peer review: an empty gun" http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/12/S4/S13 by Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal; and "The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?" http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?printable=true¤tPage=1#ixzz19SXuXddz by Jonah Lehrer from The New Yorker.

Both point to issues with not just peer review, but in the second case, how experiments are constructed.