Peer review is a very low standard. Why do so-called "global warming" "scientists" accept peer review is infallible?

Because that is all they have. that is such a lame excuse for being wrong, "Well, all dos utter guys said it too!"

And it is a real con for the uninformed. A lot of these peer review are just agenda driven reviews. There are a lot of scientists whose integrity is cheap.

A cynical person might say that based on the Climategate emails, it appears a cabal of climate scientists used peer review as a gateway to block skeptical papers.

Then, if somebody brings up a skeptical paper, they can claim that it wasn't peer-reviewed so it's not worth anything.

BTW, I wouldn't say peer-review is a low standard although it certainly isn't infallible. It is susceptible to abuse just like any other process scientific or not. Personally, I like open peer review which is actually what happens a lot in climate science unofficially.

There is a new journal starting up called the Open Atmospheric Society. It looks like it will be used by skeptics and thus is likely to be poo-pooed by mainstream climate science. However, this is the part I like (and the part which is different from most journals):

"...technical submissions to the Journal by members must include all source data, software/code, procedures, and documentation to ensure reproducibility of the paper’s experiment or analysis by external reviewers." http://theoas.org/

If this tenet is actually upheld, I challenge anyone to show that this isn't scientific.

Peer review is only the starting point in scientfic papers. It is really a quick check of logic, grammer, and other considerations like if findings are new. Mostly, it is just the minimum standard that the journal will accept and every journal has different standards.

The true test of anything within science is falsification. You place your work or theory out for other scientists to rip apart.

Peer review is certianly not infallible, but it is only the start. There is really no method that is a strong as placing the information out for people to rip apart.

Personally, while I see the point of peer review, it is rather disingenuous to denigrate a study not peer-reviewed but available for anyone to read and tear apart, simply because the lack of peer reivew.

We should remember that the journals accept articles, not based upon an agreed upon process, but upon how the journal decides. For example, there have been journals created for some subfield in science simply because the scientists did not feel their subfield got a fair shake in the larger parent field.

OM,

I love this open-review idea. Personally I do not see the need of peer review, except that journals have limited space. Anyone worht their weight is going to ask multiple colleagues to review their article.

The important part to me, is that they give the source data, methods and any documentation needed to independently reproduce the results.

With nearly unlimited space on the internet, and thus no need for journals to reject stuff they don't want, it would make for a very interesting way of doing things.

I would love to see this on the internet, where you have to post all needed information data and documentation to reproduce the result AND an updating algorithm that link to papers that reference that article.

SO, if someone attempts to reproduce the results and find the results are bogus, you automatically have a link in the original bogus article.

an honest scientist tries to prove the hypothesis wrong and sees what holds up then asks his/her peers to attempt to disprove the findings. I don't know where you get, 'a peer review is a low standard' unless you get your science education from Fox or Limbaugh...

I don't think Peer review means that much to them. They lie about what the consensus is. They believe because they want to believe IMO.

Well, it is a bad standard but no worse then being found guilty by a jury of peers in a criminal court.

Do you also expect the rest of the scientific world to abandon this "low standard"? What "higher bar of review" do you propose?

It's either peer review or your Billionaire lies.... take your pick.

They don't and you're a lying moron

No scientist says it is infalible. It is still better than the "science" deniers make up.