The problem is that I don’t know how to interpret this in any positive manner. It seems either juvenile or dishonest. What I actually said in the post was
Yes, it has slowed down since then, but it is probably still warming at more than 0.05K/decade.
where since then referred to the period 1984-1999 and slowed down referred to the period since about 2000, when it has clearly slowed down. Noone has ever disputed that the warming since the late 1990s has probably been around 0.05oC/decade, but the general expectation is that it will start accelerating in the not too distant future. I also said
it’s true that there have been recent papers suggesting that climate sensitivity may be lower than some other estimates suggest.
So, yes, there have been recent papers suggesting lower climate sensitivities than some other methods suggest. However, there have been other recent papers that are more consistent with the IPCC range. Similarly, my understanding is that, at the recent Ringberg meeting, the general view was that the method that Matt Ridley is essentially referring to (basic energy budget models) probably underestimates climate sensitivity by about 30%.
So, I find this all a bit juvenile. Take a critique of something you’ve done, and imply that it somehow agrees with your position. I’ve encountered this before, where someone will claim that I agree with them – during a discussion – when I very clearly do not. If you think what someone has said, or witten, agrees with your position, the logical response is “I agree with you”, not “you agree with me”. As I said above, all I can interpret this as is some kind of juvenile taunt, or as a dishonest attempt to twist what someone else has said.
Matt Ridley has, in the past, complained about how he is treated because of his views. If he doesn’t like the way in which he is often portrayed, maybe he should behave in a manner that would allow people to portray him more positively.