Can someone comment about this recent study: "Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant"[1]?
1. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16...
1. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16...
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-ma...
Not defending the content of the paper (haven't read it), but it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a preprint server for not being peer reviewed.
Isn't the entire point of the peer review process to have experts in the field review the methodology and reasoning? It seems reasonable to note that although something may appear to be an academic paper it has not yet been reviewed and thus is more likely to have problems.
You could take any physics paper/manuscript in its pre peer review state, and criticize it for not being peer reviewed.