;)
The Economist has a fascinating article on the failings of science and peer review which is a nice synthesis of many of the principal critiques that global warming sceptics have been expounding for years. So we hear about Ioannidis's suggestion that most scientific papers are wrong, Fiona Godlee's famous study that showed that peer review was largely a waste of time, and the lack of replication of most studies. It's almost a rewrite of Chapter 15 of The Hockey Stick Illusion.
While it's nice to have one's positions supported by such an august journal, you do have to wonder how the powers that be at the Economist can continue to support revolutionary policy changes on the basis of a system as pathetic as academic peer review. Don't get me wrong - if academics find it useful to peer review each others' work that's OK with me, but we need a much, much higher hurdle before academic papers are deemed worthy of affecting public policy. Independent replication is only the bare minimum required.