"Having posted a comment earlier (and waiting and trusting it to appear on RealClimate) I take the opportunity to express my gratefulness to RealClimate and its contributors, for hosting and disseminating some of my thoughts and ideas. A couple of comments that I posted in another occasion were very kindly received and replied in RealClimate (even though they might be different from the majority of ideas I read in RealClimate) and subsequently widely read and disseminated. I really appreciate this, particularly because I have experienced difficulties in publishing my ideas (including some of the articles I mentioned in my earlier comment..."
Which is one reason I recommended that even AGW skeptics look in there occasionally.
My take watching the discussion is that the vast majority of the professional science researchers on RC are pleased by the appearance of a skeptic who is not a fool or a crank, and delighted at the opportunity for the rest of us to watch the way in which real scientific discussion and debate is conducted by real scientists.
As for his analysis, and the discussion, it's well beyond my ability to evaluate, what is clear is that a) the professional climate-research contingent over on RC regard him as a peer and take his views seriously, and that 2) they think that though he raises very interesting questions, his general conclusion are unwarranted.
I would note, though, that this is another example of someone from outside the climate science community arriving on the scene to announce that everyone else has got it all wrong, and that the track record of such skeptics to date had been very poor.
You also need to keep in mind that this is a criticism of the modeling process, not the underlying atmospheric physics and chemistry which predict global warming - if you asked him if he believed that our understanding of atmospheric physics and chemistry should lead us to suppose that "greenhouse effects" are considerably heating the atmosphere, my guess is that he would say "Oh yeah. Sure, no question...".
The situation is sort of like mathematical modeling of what happens to the occupants of an automobile in collision: you can question the adequacy of the modeling, but that doesn't alter your understanding of the overall practical result based on your understanding of physics and biology- in fact to the extent that or modeling does not allow us to accurately and reliably predict the consequences of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, that makes the situation more worrisome, not less.