Revkin accuses Muller of "P.T. Barnum showmanship...this could backfire"; says that Curry declined to be included as an author; Curry says "Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion"

'Converted' Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming - NYTimes.com

...Muller, who has combined P.T. Barnum showmanship and science throughout his three-year project, chose to break the news in an Op-Ed article in The Times (with various leaks and rumors percolating on the Web). There are perils in having publicity precede peer review. For hints of how this could backfire, read on.
...
It’s particularly notable that one collaborator on the first batch of papers, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be included as an author on the new one. I learned this when I sent her this question by e-mail:

Do you share Rich’s extremely high confidence on attribution of recent warming to humans…?

Here’s Curry’s reply:

I was invited to be a coauthor on the new paper. I declined. I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don’t think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming….

...[Curry in another note] Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion.

...From my perspective as a longtime, but lay, analyst of climate science, my sense is she has it right...
It appears that Muller has pushed to get the new findings submitted now because Tuesday is the deadline for journal submission for research to be considered in the next climate science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If the Berkeley analysis turns out to have been rushed or its conclusions poorly supported, you’ll quickly see opponents of limits on greenhouse gases join Connolley’s “rubbish” chorus — and, once again, it’ll be clear that science alone is unlikely to break the political blockades over this issue.