climate science is a rather incestuous and inbred bunch. they seldom publically criticize each other because that would 'dilute the message'. not only that but pal review lets through many mistakes that should be caught before publication.
you say there is no accountability on blogs for mistakes but I have seen, over and over again, how blogs like Climate Audit will become interested in a new paper and start to point out errors. the original complaints are typically supplanted by more and more sophisticated criticisms as more opinions are heard and incorporated.
most laymen have neither the time nor the expertise to critique scientific papers. watching those that do, in blogs, is not only interesting but informative as well. the authors of these papers are encouraged to explain their reasoning, which leads to a back-and-forth exchange that helps everybody.
how many random people would know that it is incorrect to just add instrumental data onto proxy data? how many of those would know the various reasons why it is wrong and deceiving? how many people know the various scientific definitions of 'significant'?
I think everybody should listen to as many sides of the issue as possible before making a tentative and maleable decision on what is likely to be the closest version to the truth. while most of us need to use expert authority to explain and refine different positions, that does not mean that we should choose one and then never listen to anyone else ever again.
