Generally speaking, the people who write the papers are the same cast of characters who do the reviews on the papers. Its a fairly incestuous process, so I don't put a lot of stock in "peer review" when it comes to something as unphysical as climate science. Peer review in general, in all sciences, is also undergoing a kind of crisis of confidence. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/
People treat climate science like it was a hard science like physics or chemistry, where input A results in output B. It isn't. It is at best a "soft science" where opinion and confirmation bias creep in at every opportunity.
Keep in mind that people are trying to make predictions about the future behaviour of a complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamic system based on poorly founded, unphysical simulations of the past behaviour of that system -- you cannot simulate a system unless you understand all of its inputs and outputs, and the physical relationship between them. Prediction is, if not impossible, is very very hard. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android