There is no doubt that the peer review process is far from perfect. However, for forums, with a controversial topic like global warming that is so "charged", requiring the discussion to be restricted to the science contained in peer reviewed articles or accepted texts allows the moderators to keep the subject open and manageable.
Despite the many issues, peer review is a useful process, and there are journals and conferences that are not peer reviewed. So, good ideas can get out to the public, and if they have merit, the ideas will gain traction and eventually get into the mainstream.
I've published in both peer reviewed and "open" journals and conferences. There are pros and cons to each format.
I had a bad experience with the peer review process when I published papers for my dissertation. One of my submissions to a journal was sent to two researchers for peer review. One of those reviewers was working in the same exact field as I. He rejected the paper, while the other reviewer accepted it. Hence, the paper was rejected. When I got the comments back, I could see it was a bogus rejection, and by a fortunate quirk of fate, the company of the reviewer was in the fax header, when the photocopy was made. Hence, I knew who the guy was. I contacted the editor and protested telling him that the guy rejected it so that he could publish his work first. The editor did not believe that a scientist would ever act this way, but I convinced him to send the paper to another reviewer. The paper was accepted, but was significantly delayed. While in the process, the other guy published a paper that was almost identical to my paper, and it was clear he even stole some of my material for his paper. I sent a copy of this paper to the editor and he could not believe it, but he saw the proof in front of him and was very disgusted. So, my paper came out later, even though I submitted first. This could have literally invalidated my entire Ph.D. work because PhD work is supposed to be original work. What saved me was that the submission dates of both papers were present in both publications, and submission date is what actually sets the priority of which is "original".
The problem is not really the process, but the people involved in the process. It can be good or bad depending on if the people are good or bad. Scientists are human, and can do good or bad, just like any other group of people. However, the scientific process can correct for a lot of the bad that people do. Not all, but a lot of it. This global warming issue will eventually be sorted out. The real answers will be known eventually, despite the flaws of the people involved.