A couple of years ago, I criticised a paper by Bob Irvine published by WIT (a publisher on Beal’s List of possibly predatory publishers). Shortly afterwards, the paper was retracted with the editor writing “I have now received the result of a peer evaluation carried out urgently yesterday on the paper you brought into question, and have decided to withdraw it from our eLibrary.”
Recently, a commenter told me that a revised version of the paper was now published.
I don’t know what’s changed in the paper as I didn’t keep a copy of the paper and the journal does not disclose what changed. But I can compare the abstract. It was one paragraph. It is now four paragraphs. The text is otherwise identical (except that “greenhouse” has been mis-corrected to “Green House”). The declaration that Irvine does not understand climate models is still there
Most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate models assume that the efficacy of a solar forcing is close to the efficacy of a similar sized Green House Gas (GHG) forcing.
As are the tin foil experiments.
If the paper was bad enough to merit retraction two years ago, it really isn’t clear why it merits publication now.