Likewise, Tipler does not advocate abandoning peer-review, just modifying it.
Each journal is free to have whatever process it likes before publishing. If a journal has low standards (which they are free to do), they may get themselves a reputation of publishing a lot of crazy or cranky ideas.
You can't force people to take these ideas seriously, and there is nothing stopping people from publishing them. You yourself have noted that many peer review papers are shown to be somewhat erroneous later.
Let us say that Science only publishes 10% of the stuff it receives, and 80% of the stuff it publishes is later shown to be someone incorrect...imagine how much more unreliable the content would be if they reduced their peer review standards?
Sure, a maverick genius might get ignored. A great idea that goes against orthodoxy might have a harder time getting attention. The upside to all this is that we can be more confident in what does get published in conservative journals. So, after struggling, if an idea does get into Science or Nature, it will be widely read and given suitable consideration.
As noted, not a perfect system, but there is none better. Since you can't force this kind of change, evidence that it is better is required. Open a science journal, have lower standards than other journals and see if a revolution happens. If that does happen, Tipler is vindicated and other journals may join in. If on the other hand, the revolution happens but lots of time and energy is wasted on exploring nonsense and cranks, other journals might not bother.
™ Version 4.2
