I understand the article wasn't peer-reviewed, it was only an example of the absurd level of polarization that has distorted the scientific process in climate r

I understand the article wasn't peer-reviewed, it was only an example of the absurd level of polarization that has distorted the scientific process in climate research. However, it must be said "peer review" is no guarantee of scientific purity, the peer review system is subject to being gamed and can exhibit severe bias against unconventional approaches or novel findings. One version is the "file-drawer effect", operative in a range of science publishing. For example, accepting drug studies showing positive results but not those where drug treatment doesn't separate from placebo gives a falsely favorable impression of the effectiveness of the drug. Logically we could assert that in the presence of bias toward publishing climate studies supporting warming vs. reports not showing warming, the credibility of widely quoted results becomes questionable. It's natural, healthy and desirable for serious students of a subject to disagree. OTOH whenever political force imposes suppression of opposing points of view the process of science grinds to a halt, leaving only pseudo-scientific mythology in its place.