yes there IS (or at least WAS) a sting in the tail. Mike was certainly not the best collaborator , and in some aspects of his work , not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked. This would not be bad in itself , were allowance made and advice sought and accepted from a wider circle of colleagues or specialists than he was inclined to consult. There was a certain , apparent , overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance and this has led to SOME EXTENT to a degree of unnecessary conflict with researchers and some members of the wider public , as regards the validity and certainty of some of his (and the IPCC) conclusions. I qualified this statement , because it is undoubtedly true that some of his critics have strong vested interests in attacking his work , and almost without exception , their criticisms have bee ill founded , even fraudulent.
Hat tip: M. Hulme