As a newcomer to the AGW wars I have found it very confusing that the pro AGW side always seems to fall back on the excuse that anyone that disagrees should be ignored because of 'consensus' and lack of 'peer review'. I have always thought that ideas should stand on their own merits, open to debate. While bouncing around from one site to another I have seen many instances of 'settled science' that haven't passed the sniff test. From massive weightings given to anomalous tree rings, to grafting of one type of data to a different type, to correlation equals causation problems, to publication bias, to unrepeatable methodologies, etc.... here are two links that show how non-peer reviewed and non-climate scientists can and do help the understanding of climate change DailyTech - New Scandal Erupts over NOAA Climate Data DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data Climate science is too insulated. They could especially use more input from the statistical scientists.