I believe they were referring to the paper discussed here: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/#more-9603 http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/1

I believe they were referring to the paper discussed here: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/#more-9603 http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/#mor... It seems to have been included with a dismissive editorial comment ("Michaels says X, but he's wrong"), which was not supported by any literature, and which the authors were not given the chance to respond to before publication. Just mentioning that "it was included" is a bit misleading.