And here we go down the rabbit hole.
Why is one discounting the peer review process?
Why is it 'news' that peer review (as most processes) may need improvement?
Why is it 'news' that journals have different processes that may not be consistent?
Why is it 'news' that some papers may not meet certain standards of rigor after the above is considered?
Why is it 'news' that some work may not be well done?
Discounting peer review and throwing peer review out as a problem is an attempt to discredit scientific discourse. This is spreading FUD, not evidence, not critique, not substantive. This is pretty clearly an attack on the FINDINGS, not via the scientific process nor via evidence based discussion, but nearly solely based on FUD. I will draw the logical conclusion that it is a denier/skeptic outlook that is driving this directed attack (and yes it is an attack) to discredit an entire body of scientific evidence by throwing doubt upon the process while choosing to be silent about the actual conclusions that may be appropriately drawn from the entire body of research. Now the process may have some flaws for some of the papers, that is why there are repeated and repeated and repeated looks and tests and multiple lines of questions and multiple instigators that validate this body of research.
Perhaps I should ask,
Why is it NOT news that there is little evidence contrary to anthropomorphic climate change?
Why is it that science and evidence is being sold as products of political conspiracy/controversy?
Why is it that the financial backing of such studies of non-anthropomorphic climate change is via industry?
Balance is the key. Saying we don't know implies more uncertainty than is supported by the evidence. A more balanced and appropriate statement of 'the preponderance of evidence is that there is anthropomorphic climate change that could be mitigated through concerted and consolidated policies' would meet the bill.
Climate change is happening. Period. At least a part of it is caused by human activity. Period. Arguing over peer review processes is purely an attempt to not address the identified problem.
To say that one cannot advocate for moving from coal to a more efficient and effective (when all costs are considered) fuel seems to indicate that evidence will not sway your belief. Natural gas is more efficient, a primary reason for the decline of coal is the low price for each BTU of energy, especially when the pollution and particulate impacts of coal are considered. Coal is declining, and should decline given the alternatives, propping it up will be ineffective and would contribute to economic inefficiencies. This is not a Clinton/Obama deal (saying that it was a Clinton deal has strong implications regarding your ability to separate the political from that which is evidence based), coal was a declining industry when fracking ramped, natural gas deposits were opened up, and energy costs took a nosedive. Should BTU costs treble, then coal may once again rise as a low priced BTU alternative, but until then it is unlikely.
Now if your argument is that known anthropomorphic climate change has been politicized inappropriately, I will agree entirely and ask why you posted and supported a FUD article with a seemly sole purpose of avoiding discussion of the problem that should be discussed.
