Peer Review by Open Media - new innovation or threat to established protocol??

So, in checking out yet another denialist website link I came across a paper that was claimed to be "Peer Reviewed" by "Principa Scientific International". The paper is here http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf

This paper's main references were to Wiki (What The ..........?) and seemed to attempt to use the most jumbled load of claptrap I have had the misfortune to read in a long long time (and this is coming from someone who has actually read the AGW sites like "Tallman"

So even without analysing the fractured physics (but I do recommend reading it as everyone needs a good laugh) one has to wonder, on the basis of the reference list alone "Who the Hell would pass a paper like that in peer review?"

And the answer is here - a "new" form of peer review called "Peer Review by Open Media"

It is explained further at Climate Depot

http://climatechangedispatch.com/ho...ms-no-atmospheric-warming-from-carbon-dioxide

But I have to ask myself - if this process is so good - how come it passed a paper with such high school level references?

 

Oh, the irony.
If you remember the deniers made such a big deal of the statement by Jones ("even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is"), and here the deniers are doing exactly what they claimed Jones was trying to do: re-defining peer-review. And whereas no attempt was ever made by any serious scientists, deniers havea actually re-defined peer-review at http://principia-scientific.org/ And from this article, 53 Bogus Authority Statements that Earth’s Atmosphere ‘Like a Greenhouse’ in http://principia-scientific.org/ it looks like they are so open-minded, the brain is falling out.

Really? "mythical two-way heating process (upward and downward) of “back radiation”." Sorry, any journal that phrase appears in should not be considered a serious journal.

Someone should inform O"Sullivan that back radiation has been measured and the concept is supported by the laws of physics. A good three article explanation from scienceofdoom : "The Amazing Case of "Back Radiation"

 

What gets me is that the ones that scream loudest about "manipulation of data" swallow this bunk whole