Hunch proved correct

I had noticed recently (from a climate science website) that a paper had come out which was co-authored by climate skeptic Pat Michaels, arguing that the recent loss of ice in Greenland was no big deal. It claimed (from the abstract):

We find that the recent period of high-melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s.

Funny, I thought, I don't recall seeing this being bragged about at Watts Up With That. Maybe there is something not quite right about the paper.

Now I see an article at Skeptical Science confirms my hunch.

And climate skeptics have the hide to complain about peer review being broken!

UPDATE: having read through the comments to the Skeptical Science article, and the comments to an earlier post by Lucia, I can see the argument that Dr Box himself may have been doing a bit of grandstanding. This is more complicated than it first appears, although there does seem little doubt that some skeptics have treated the paper as if it is a case of "nothing to see here" (in Greenland melt, when in fact it is getting faster.