Generally speaking, it turns out, peer-reviewed literature on medical science is substantially bullshit--distorted, cherry-picked data, taken out of context, unlikely correlations built up without solid evidence.
This is what happens when the boomers are in charge.
So it's not true that peer-reviewed science tends to be solid, therefore we should give the climate warmists the benefit of any doubt. Rather, especially with the boomers in charge, it should all be regarded with skepticism.
h/t Judith Curry, who also points to a NYT article.
Meanwhile, Bishop Hill takes us back to the "nuclear scientists" advising Eisenhower in the 50s--people with the best credentials, who were wrong, wrong, wrong.