This is weird. Anthony Watts (a "climate hoax" conspiracy blogger) has written about a paper in one of the top economic journals, which a lot of people think shouldn't have been published (archived here). That's okay, sometimes bad papers get published and sometimes there are shonky things happening with peer review. Thing is, as shown in his article, Anthony wants bad research in climate science.
There was a kerfuffle a few years ago when a science denier Chris de Freitas became an editor of Climate Research. It went on for several years - between 1997 and 2003. He organised the publication of a bunch of shonky papers over that period. At the end he was turfed, and when another editor tried and met opposition to fixing the problem, he and a number of other editors resigned. John Mashey did some excellent work showing how much shoddy work got through. His analysis was published at DeSmog Blog.
Now Anthony Watts should make up his mind. He complained about a shonky paper in American Economic Review, but then he turned around and complained that climate scientists complained about work they considered not up to par. He quoted a snippet from a stolen email showing Dr Phil Jones wanted to keep two shoddy papers out of the IPCC reports. He didn't. They both made it through, so I don't know what Anthony Watts is complaining about. (They made it through, but were given the weight they deserved.)
Anthony Watts wants to have it both ways. He supports only shonkiness and bad research in climate science but doesn't support it in other academic fields. On his blog he promotes appalling and wrong articles (usually blog pseudo-science, but occasionally poor published science), and dismisses good science.
From the WUWT comments
There aren't a lot yet and what's there isn't worth the paper it's written on (which is non-existent).