You might not like peer review, but as has been shown earlier, Oreskes peer-reviewed work demonstrating a consensus on anthropogenic GW has come out pretty well so far, while Peiser's non-peer-reviewed attack on her work was found to be a pile of crud when people actually looked at it. The large amount of peer-reviewed articles examining AGW have a credibility that the denialists don't have, as proven yet again when Peiser was pitted against Oreskes.

This staggers me.

To recap: Oreskes submits a paper to Science, it is reviewed, accepted and published, Peiser tries to duplicate the results, finds a very obvious mistake which Science missed even though it supposedly passed through vigourous peer review first and subsequently prints a correction. You just handwave this away.

I find it odd you have categorised efforts by Peiser to duplicate Oreskes' work as an "attack". Such adversial and denigrating language as "pitted" and "crud" respectively to describe a basic scientific principle in action (results must be replicable independently using the same methodology) are extraordinary. You sound more defensive than Oreskes herself!

My personal, unscientific, non-peer-reviewed opinion is Oreskes' research is little more than a glorified Google search using cherry-picked search terms. However, if this is acceptable, skeptical scientists (that should a tautology, but apparently it isn't always the case in GW scientific circles) can also mine abstracts from thousands of published papers to show no consensus about AGW or research actually falsifying AGW altogether, like these guys do, and submitting it to Science to support their position.

Right?