I've barely commented on the Muller BEST thing, primarily on the grounds that there is nothing there worth commenting on. There might be something mildly interesting in the details of their approach, but it was clear from the outset that (assuming they didn't mess the whole thing up) they wouldn't reach significantly different conclusions than the several other groups who have been analysing the surface temperature record for years. Certainly, there was nothing to justify the extraordinary press coverage they received before they had even done any analysis.
Now at long last it's published. Previously submitted to JGR, it has ended up...as the first article in a newly-created fake vanity press "journal". That's a few rungs down from just sticking it on the Arxiv, where (1) it is free (2) at least some people will read it (3) no-one will think you are pretending it's undergone any meaningful peer review. No wonder Curry has pulled her name from it. The surprise is that the others have not.
I'm actually half-wondering if the journal has stolen this manuscript as a way of generating content. Have any of the authors commented?