Andrew Neil has been getting a hard time on Twitter, with Nuccitelli et al shouting that he is misrepresenting things but as usual presenting very little actual evidence to support his case.
There was another delicious example of this kind of thing overnight. Readers will of course remember the Economist's minor scoop about what WGIII were going to say about climate sensitivity. The article was heavily caveated as to the draft nature of the IPCC table concerned:
There are several caveats. The table comes from a draft version of the report, and could thus change. It was put together by the IPCC working group on mitigating climate change, rather than the group looking at physical sciences. It derives from a relatively simple model of the climate, rather than the big complex ones usually used by the IPCC. And the literature to back it up has not yet been published.
Nevertheless the IPCC felt itself duty-bound to issue a statement saying, in effect, "But it's only a draft!"
This was the cue for climatologists to start up with their normal claims of misrepresentation.
;)
And, as you can see, this then gets retweeted all over the shop.
And then MPs wonder why people tend not to trust anything that comes out of the climatological community.