While jules was busy getting her hair pulled over there, I was having an exclusive interview with David Rose of the Daily Mail, some of which appeared in this article (apologies to anyone who suffers an allergic reaction to any of those words - firefox users may find this add-on useful).
In the interests of openness, here is the full transcript...
The reality is that there was no interview: he never even contacted me to check he had represented my views accurately, just as he didn't ask Ed Hawkins before apparently plagiarising his graph (and misrepresenting it into the bargain).
The "increasingly untenable" quote seems to have been pulled off the Revkin article (without attribution, naturally) which quoted me recently. Andy Revkin did exchange a few emails with me to ensure he had fairly represented my view, and I have absolutely no complaint with him on that score. The bit Rose adds about "the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007" is a complete fabrication of course, it's not something I can imagine having said, or being likely. I do think the IPCC range is a bit high, expecially the 17% probability of sensitivity greater than 4.5C. But their range, or best estimate, is certainly not something I would disagree with by a factor of 2. See here for some more extensive recent commentary from me.
Given all that, it's perhaps a bit pointless to comment on the other opinions quoted by Rose, as they may also be lies. However, Piers Forster appears to defend his (IMO reasonable) comment (though not the article as a whole). I'm a little more surprised by the comment attributed to Myles Allen - if he really thinks the higher estimates are "looking iffy" then it's hard to think of anyone who could still defend them. It wasn't long ago he was arguing that the IPCC projections were too optimistic.