I have only read the back up material he links to but he makes the argument that increased CO2 cause the atmosphere to become dryer thus the the greenhouse effect of CO2 is balanced by the loss of water vapor. This isn’t a “new” theory. Everybody and their atmospheric scientist brother have been publishing on this. This guy is just doing a new analysis on old data. Maybe he’s right. For instance, I think Spencer has published something on this.
As far as the “black listed” charge, I can’t see how he was black listed. He’s publishing in an a topic the journals he sends this paper to aren’t interested in. If he really wants to get this out there, he can just put it on the web.
“If he really wants to get this out there, he can just put it on the web.”
I think you’re missing the point. In academia, peer review is the “quality control” on published work. Any crank can post anything s/he wants on the Web: that doesn’t in any way make it legitimate. Being published in a top-tier scientific journal that is peer-reviewed obviously isn’t a guarantee against error, but it means that at least 2-3 reviewers who presumably know something about the subject in depth have reviewed the paper and vetted any obvious errors.
The scandal about ClimateGate in part related to evidence that the AGW “insiders” may have been deliberately trying to either ensure that the work of skeptics didn’t get into the best peer-reviewed journals and/or discrediting the reputations of journals that did publish challenges to the AGW orthodoxy. So while this particular individual’s claims of being blacklisted may or may not be true, the claim itself is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility given the past behavior of AGW worshipers.