[metmom]

What's worse in the case of AGW is that it is now abundantly evident that they committed fraud for monetary gain, sacrificed what they knew to be true for monetray gain, and lied openly for monetary gain and "OBJECTIVE" PEER-REVIEW LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT... AND IT DID SO REPEATEDLY!!

Near as I can figure, peer review isn't about determining the truth of the matter. It's just about determining whether the proper procedures were followed in doing the research. I don't think that there's much else they can actually, technically, objectively determine from reviewing a paper

[Agamemnon]

Near as I can figure, peer review isn't about determining the truth of the matter.

Evolutionists have routinely credited their "peer-review" process with having been able to ferret out such things as the more recent van Zeiten frauds of 2004-2005, and even the the Pildown frauds of the '20's.

I know, it wasn't "peer review" either, just hoaxes busted as hoaxes, while the academic "peer review" community was busy running interference or looking the other way.

The only thing materialists haven't yet seemed to subject the "peer review" process to are such age old questions like "Jif, or Skippy?" "Coke or Pepsi?" and, "Stripes or Plaids?"

Again, since when it all comes down to it in their view it's neither right nor wrong and "peer review" is all about establishing consensus, we'll just have to see which researchers make the loudest political belch for which.