Reply #22: The principle of peer reviewed science is sound, but [View All]

if both the authors and reviewers come from the same pool of peers that are part of the scientific consensus, that doesn't inspire as much confidence as say peer reviews by those that hold no opinion or even better, the opposite. Ever heard of preaching to the choir?

If a study can stand the scrutiny of those who are impartial or even hostile it is worth a lot more than when the group doing the review have pre-agreed that they agree on everything.

In US courts one may have a "jury of your peers", but these peers are not the co-accused or someone with a vested interest in the outcome. I am sure you prefer to think of the deniers as the accused, with yourself as a member of the impartial jury?