Oh, I see now why you were so interesting in Syney's sea level rise, Indyvidual:

http://www.rmit.edu.au/news/lookout/shonky-maths-used-to-show-sea-level-fall

You dropped that one very quickly!

Gee 0.8mm a year ... man the lifeboats, we'll soon be up to the catastrophists' predicted 6 metres. What a joke. There is a list of failed catastrophic predictions that could fill a book, Gore's and Flannery's just a tiny example.

Meanwhile some good news from the US where solar firm bankruptcies are "the new norm" even in the ultra woke California. Keep doling out the cash by the $$$billions until the same happens here, just like Bowen and Albo's Green Hydrogen wet dreams are exploding financially faster than you can say Hindenburg.
An extract from https://www.masterresource.org/solar-power-issues/solar-bankruptcies-new-normal/
" 2024 has brought immense challenges, with higher interest rates, tighter financing, and adverse policy shifts in key states contributing to over 100 solar bankruptcies based on our industry data, a number unseen before in our almost 20 years in the solar sector.

California was particularly hard hit due to new net metering rules under NEM 3.0 that radically reduced system economics. These adverse state policy impacts exacerbated financing shifts, triggering plummeting demand and an 80% decrease in rooftop solar installation volume. The California Solar & Storage Association reports that the fallout includes thousands of stalled projects, over 17,000 industry layoffs, and a wave of high-profile bankruptcies...."

Australia next...

The paper "Coral in a Warming World - Causes for optimism" by Peter Ridd, has this foreword -Acknowledgements
The author thanks D. Mason Jones, A. Jones, E. Ridd, M. Ridd, and A. Montford who helped improve the manuscript, and a myriad of people of who have supplied him with information and support.
Two peer-reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.
The author works unpaid by any organisation or individual ....

So yes I mentioned "peer reviewed" to hook the vastly knowledgeable JD, but there is no set number needed to be classed as peer reviewed:
AI Overview
There isn't a single, universal number of peer reviews required, but a scientific paper generally needs a minimum of two independent peer reviewers to be considered for publication. The exact number can vary depending on the journal's specific policies..

I wonder how many were required for the publication of the sex life of dogs as referred to earlier to show how "peer review" can be manipulated.

Mikko2,

So now we’ve got three different deflections in one post: sea level rise, solar bankruptcies, and another attempt to rescue your “peer review” claim. Let’s take them in turn.

Sea level rise:

Trivialising “0.8 mm a year” ignores the point: it’s not static, it’s accelerating. Globally the rate is now over 4 mm a year, which scales to decimetres per century. That’s why insurers, engineers, and coastal councils plan for higher floods and storm surges. Talking in millimetres is a rhetorical trick, not an answer.

Solar bankruptcies:

Yes, some California rooftop solar firms failed after state policy changes (NEM 3.0) and high interest rates. That doesn’t mean “solar doesn’t work,” it means a policy shift disrupted that particular market segment. Globally, renewables are still the cheapest source of new power, and utility-scale solar keeps expanding. Fossil fuel firms also go bankrupt - Enron, Peabody, dozens more - but no one claims that proves coal “doesn’t work.” Industry shake-outs are part of growth, not proof of collapse.

Peer review:

The Ridd report you’re clinging to was published by GWPF, a political lobby group, not a journal. The fact he thanks “two peer reviewers” in the acknowledgements doesn’t make it peer-reviewed science. Real peer review means independent, anonymous referees chosen by an editor, a published acceptance date, and a permanent DOI in a scientific journal. GWPF doesn’t provide that. It’s editorial vetting, not scientific review. If two named friends in the acknowledgements count as “peer review,” then every blog post on the internet qualifies.

Dog sex paper hoaxes:

Your “dog sex paper” example misses the point. Those hoaxes were exposed and retracted precisely because journals have oversight. A GWPF pamphlet faces no such scrutiny, which is why it doesn’t belong in the scientific literature in the first place.

So no, you haven’t rescued the peer review claim. It’s still just a lobby group pamphlet dressed up as science. Jokes and anecdotes don’t change that.

Back to the old peer review is great , Peter Ridd's isn't line. There are heaps of articles and studies revealing how peer review is frequently a case of "follow the money" and a scam just like "climate change" based on dodgy computer modelling - "garbage in, garbage out".
Despite all the peer reviews and failed predictions from fund-chasing scientists, not one has been able to come up with empirical evidence that CO2 is the main driver of climate change despite numerous challenges from independent scientists and experienced geologists over the years.
On the peer review theme here is just one study showing "organised scientific fraud is growing at an alarming rate". https://phys.org/news/2025-08-scientific-fraud-alarming-uncovers.html#google_vignette
"Although concerns around scientific misconduct typically focus on lone individuals, the Northwestern study instead uncovered sophisticated global networks of individuals and entities, which systematically work together to undermine the integrity of academic publishing.

The problem is so widespread that the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications. The authors argue these findings should serve as a wake-up call to the scientific community, which needs to act before the public loses confidence in the scientific process..."

Mikko2,

So we’ve gone from “Ridd’s report is peer-reviewed” -> “okay, it isn’t” -> “peer review is a scam.” That’s not a defence, that’s just moving the goalposts again.

Yes, fraud exists in science. It always has. But that’s precisely why peer review, replication, and retraction systems exist. Your own link proves the point: misconduct gets uncovered, flagged, and published for all to see. That’s accountability. By contrast, GWPF pamphlets like Ridd’s face no independent checks at all. If you think peer review is weak, what you’re clinging to is weaker.

As for CO2: the “no empirical evidence” line is flat-out wrong.

In the lab, we’ve measured CO2’s heat-trapping properties since Tyndall in 1859.

Satellites directly detect CO2’s infrared absorption bands in the atmosphere.

Surface stations measure the downward “back-radiation” from greenhouse gases increasing over time.

Rising CO2 levels match the radiative forcing needed to explain observed warming.

That’s empirical. You can dislike models, but you can’t magic away spectroscopy.

And predictions? Long-term projections from the 1970s (like Hansen 1981) have tracked reality remarkably well once actual emissions are plugged in. A few soundbites from Gore or Flannery aren’t “the science.” The peer-reviewed record shows warming, sea level rise, ice loss, and bleaching all on pace with greenhouse forcing.

So no, pointing to fraud in some corner of academia doesn’t make Ridd’s GWPF pamphlet legitimate. It just highlights the difference: real science is self-correcting, advocacy think-tanks are not. Peer review may be imperfect, but it beats no review at all.

And that’s exactly what you’re defending: no scrutiny, no accountability, no science.