Also, it was not published in "Nature", it was published in "Nature Climate Change".

Now "Nature" (the publisher) has many journals, and many of them has a name that starts with "Nature", but they are different journals, with different teams and different qualities. https://www.nature.com/siteindex#journals-N

So Nature publishes comments without reviewing them?

It very much seems like they do, doesn't it?

That assumption is wrong. Take it as a single data point about the reliability of their peer review process. EDIT: I really mean that is a single data point. A usually reputable publisher can make mistake sometimes.

If you are suggesting to make inference from a single data point, you kind of proving the necessity of peer review.

I was suggesting the opposite.

Yes, see, here we have respect for science only if a) it is our specific field, or b) fits average tech bro sensibilities. Obviously, we are completely objective and not emotional or biased, because we know JavaScript.