The scientific method is a tool, like mathematics.
You can misuse the SM, just like you can misuse mathematics, but bastardizing the peer review process doesn't affect the value of the process.
You didn't invalidate the process, you just ignored it. Part of the SM process is to point out publicly when this happpens, as has been done in this case.
I can't agree with the above. The journal editors and peer reviewers who are supposed to be guardians of the process have NOT done so. They have participated in pushing only one side of the story.
The ONLY reason that the "anti-GW" side of the equation has gotten any exposure at all has been due to the availability of the internet and the ability to bypass the people who have foresaken their guardianship, and become "gatekeepers" instead. Or perhaps the informational equivalent of "Maxwell's demon".
So, no.....I do NOT see that the "scientific method" has succeeded in this case. Quite the contrary. OTOH, the true "freedom of the press" HAS succeeded.
I'm not sure what the answer is to fixing the SM. Perhaps, since most journals are now moving to electronic distribution, each submitted article might have an "open comments forum" associated specifically to that article to allow much more extended "peer review". Include the comments from the "official" peer reviewers as the first "posts" in the forum, and go from there. Leave comments open, for, say, a calendar year.