how did they get past review in the first place?
You do realize that Tol's paper passed peer review also? You must therefore believe that there's 'a big conspiracy among the authors, the reviewers, the publishers, and more'. ?
I note that you dodged the question about breaking anonymity.
I would happy to pass along peer reviewed scientific studies studying peer review.
As to your other comments, since when are social scientists (who are included in Cook's 97% figure) climatologists? Since when are public surveys considered climate science literature? AMS members are a lot closer to 'climatologists' than many of the scientists he includes in Cook's 'consensus' paper.
On another note, you got me thinking about the integrity of the people on the review board who approved Cook's paper.
"Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper." - https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
Maybe they believe climate change is SO important that they're willing to be dishonest? Gleick was willing to be dishonest. At least we can agree on that, right?