peer review

Despite the fact that a peer-reviewed journal was cancelled for the stated reason that it published work critical of the IPCC claims, two distractions have now surfaced:

1. that the peer review was actually "pal review" - i.e. review by known friends, associates, etc., of the author(s);
2. that this has somehow compromised the entire 'climate sceptic movement'.

So let's deal with (1):

If the publishers discovered all this in 24 hours and gave the editors a chance to defend themselves, and made a decision to cancel the journal, they are superhuman. So I'd love to hear any theory as to what actually went on except for either:

• they knew about the 'pal review' in advance but it didn't matter to them until they learned that the journal was publishing results they didn't like; or
• they cooked up this excuse after the fact.