Peer review in action. Is it completely broke?

 Corruption of Science

This second post today contains ingredients (in the links) only for the dedicated.  Here are the cardinal points of this story.   It continues the theme in the sub title of Andrew Montford's devastating book.

1. Critics of the 'establishment' climate science are lambasted for criticising -  and not doing original peer reviewed work of their own.
2. Establishment scientist Eric Steig produces a peer reviewed paper showing East Antartica is warming at a greater rate than previously shown.
3. Ryan O'Donnell produces paper challenging Steig's calculations.  It scrapes through to publication only after intensive scrutiny and a lengthy challenges from the peer review.
4. Steig criticises the methods used in O'Donnell's paper in Realclimate blog.  The post is technical and downplays the significance of O'Donnell's criticisms.
5. O'Donnell replies to Steig's criticisms at Climate Audit blog.  He avers that the arguments in Steig's post are largely false and then reveals that the key anonymous peer reviewer of his much challenged paper was . . . guess who?   Steig.  The claims (you need to read right to the end of the Climate Audit post) are astonishing.

If O'Donnell's allegations are true we have another nail in the 'establishment' lauded peer review.