The existence of fifty peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.discovery.org&#x2F;id&#x2F;peer-review&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.discovery.org&#x2F;id&#x2F;peer-review&#x2F;</a>) suggests to me that peer-review is not always the be-all and end-all of a scientific investigation.<p>There have been numerous accusations that raw climate data is &#x27;processed&#x27; using questionable assumptions.  I can’t judge that but I would that thought it&#x27;s better to get to the truth rather than dismissing such claims out of hand with a demeaning personalized epithet. This is especially so given that truly enormous sums of money are at stake.<p>Getting to the truth might well involve examining professional communications between people people supported by taxpayers&#x27; cash.