For various reasons mostly related to the IPCC rumour-mill, the "hiatus" (seems to be the politically correct term these days) in global temperature is in the news again. Which brings to mind this manuscript which was rejected by GRL a few years ago (and which I just put on the arXiv a few days ago):
Our results indicate cause for concern regarding the consistency between climate model projections and observed climate behavior under conditions of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions.
The analysis was extensively discussed back at the time, and the paper submitted to (and rejected by) GRL at about the same time. From memory, it got quite an involved treatment from the reviewers. Rejection from GRL isn't something I can't get too worked up over. I'm confident that the paper was fundamentally correct, worth publishing, and that it would have had plenty of impact. However, the peer review filter is pretty noisy at journals like GRL with high rejection rates, and decisions can't be parsed too finely. I did subsequently encourage submission to other journals, but for various reasons that didn't happen. Of course it's easy for a minor author to encourage other people to do the work for a new submission :-) In case it isn't already clear, my listing as last author is not an indication that I'm the Machiavellian brains masterminding this nefarious plot to discredit climate models, but instead just a fair reflection on the minor magnitude of my contribution.
3 years later, it seems reasonable to conclude that our main error was merely in being several years ahead of the rest of the field.