Everything you have said here I think I have already answered earlier, with the following exceptions.

It was you, not me, who introduced peer review into the discussion; I've no idea what your basis is for talking about a "fixation".

Most of the raw data that the CRU threw out in the 1980s are, AIUI, still available elsewhere. CRU's model produces results extremely similar to everyone else's models.

I don't think it's true that every time an error is found it goes in the same direction. (Specifically, I think I remember seeing a counterexample. I don't remember what it was, but then you haven't mentioned any specifics of anything at any point so I don't feel too bad about that.) It might be true that every time an error is found and trumpeted about by disbelievers in AGW it's in the same direction, but there is an obvious explanation for that, no?

Of course scientific truth isn't defined by consensus, and of course I neither said nor suggested that it is. But for someone who isn't an expert in any scientific field, the consensus of experts is typically pretty much the best estimator they have for the truth.