Actually you can, if you follow the complete peer-review process, unfortunately, if you really don't understand the science and the field specific and appropriate standards, you really aren't going to get much out of the professional review exchanges either. The point being, if you have concerns that processes and methods are improper or unusual then its time to do some background reading and research yourself. If you rely soley or even predominantly upon the word of someone else as to the significance of an issue you don't understand is proper or improper, then you still don't know anything except what the other person is telling you, and you have no means of verifying what they are telling you.
Start with the core science and math issues and then build into how they are integrated into climate science understandings. If you suspect something amiss or peculiar go through the texts and references, and if you are still left with questions or concerns, go to the researchers themselves. My experience has been that most researchers will respond helpfully to polite and direct requests for explanations. But keep your questions tightly focussed direct, and don't expect them to personally explain all of the background material required to explain complex issues. Ask good questions which indicate that you are seriously involved in researching and attempting to find the answers on your own, and every researcher I know will bend over backwards to try and help you acquire that understanding that you seek.
now you're just bloviating, lol. unless you have access most papers are behind paywalls and all you see are abstracts and articles about what someone thinks the paper says. even then, how often have you searched out the SI (supplimental information) to check the data, and when have you ever seen the peer review comments that are passed back and forth?
why did McIntyre get the runaround when he suspected something was amiss? he was focussed and polite and only asked for the data and clarification of the methodology. instead of cooperation he got lied to, ignored, besmirched and ostrisized. for trying to make sense of what may be the most influential paper ever published. have you ever actually read the chronology of the HS graph and the efforts to release the data and code? how can you support an anti-scientist like Mann?
I personally think climate models are a good tool for checking out ideas but I recognize the deep faults they have in dealing with poorly understood factors (and probably unknown factors as well). it is folly that they claim ~90% knowledge of how CO2 doubling will affect the temps when they have such a weak understanding of the rest of the system. they think CO2 is responsible for 9-25% of the greenhouse effect, what about the other 75-91%? huge uncertainties and they are irresponsible for claiming otherwise.
as I have said before- I am a lukewarmer. it has warmed a little since the LIA. CO2 must have some effect, but in my opinion small and compensated by the rest of the system. when you knock out the lynchpins of unprecedented warming (the hockeystick and its similarly diseased progeny) and positive climate feedbacks (faulty climate models tuned to a particular result) all you are left with is a slightly warmer world with more plant food.