Analysis of climate model reliability meets all five criteria in the Scope document for Risk Analysis.

The Tony Cox/James Lambert editorial rejection clearly contradicted their own Journal Scope (which see). 

Drs. Cox and Lambert also downplayed the timeliness and global importance of the manuscript analysis in their rejection.

Further, the Summer 2012 Special Issue of Risk Analysis on “Ecological Risk Assessment,”…

“https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.stanford.idm.oclc.org/page/journal/15396924/homepage/virtual_issue__ecological_risk_assessment.htm

… overseen by Topic Editor Wayne G. Landis, ends with this view under “Future Topics in Risk Analysis”

“Climate change is a profound driver of environmental alteration. At a recent conference at Wingspread Wisconsin,1 global climate change was recognized as profoundly impacting ecological risk assessment. Many of the assumptions such as baseline conditions, consistency of fate and transport rates, exposure, and biomagnification and toxic response will not hold. As climate changes so will the ranges of current species and non-indigenous species. Depending upon the endpoint or ecosystem service, the influence of climate change may produce negative or even positive changes. I expect this new field to be one of the growing areas in the ecological risk assessment literature.

“1 The influence of global climate change on the scientific foundations and applications of environmental toxicology and chemistry. A Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Pellston Conference held at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, July 16-21.”

The Cox/Lambert grounds for rejection are rationally incomprehensible.