In the paid advertisement on global warming on page 7A of the 13 January edition of the Camera, the statement “It is peer reviewed, or scientifically true …” is simply wrong.
The purpose of peer review in scientific publication is to ensure that the methods used in the research being reported are consistent with the standards of the discipline being investigated, and are appropriate for the nature of the data being analyzed. Peer review assesses whether alternative explanations are given adequate treatment, and whether the author’s conclusions are justified from the data, analysis, and interpretation. The reader is left to decide the “truth” after considering the article in the context of other theories and experiments in the literature on the subject.
For example, a peer reviewer might reject an article for publication because the author presented only data favorable to his or her hypothesis selected from a larger set. A reviewer might ask the author to revise a manuscript, because it is impossible for readers to interpret a graph that is not labeled completely.
I’m not sure what Professor Pearson is trying to sell in his “advertisement”, but the material he presented did not convince me to buy it.