I saw the NYT piece earlier today, and I'm amazed that he even considers himself a skeptic. Everything in here has already been said by other scientists already

I saw the NYT piece earlier today, and I'm amazed that he even considers himself a skeptic. Everything in here has already been said by other scientists already, eg. his analysis apparently consists essentially of fitting temperature to CO2 levels: "Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase. " About the only reason that this is newsworthy is that he's a notable climate skeptic, and he's funding comes from Koch, a coal based lobbying organisation.