The main problem with the hay making by the warmistas is that we 'deniers' have no problem with the planet getting warmer, or indeed colder. The climate changes; always has, always will, it is a chaotic system that will only reach equilibrium the day that all weather stops.
The $64,000 question is not how much the average surface temperature is changing (a pretty useless metric btw even if it could be accurately established, like just about all averages) but how much is due to human activity.
The media, and the Beeb is amongst the worst for this, make the bold leap that change just has to be due to human activity, even though that is impossible to establish.
There is no doubt in my mind (as someone who used to build econometric and risk models for a living) that the 'proof' provided by climate models is utter BS. It is possible, of course, to build reasonably accurate models of environments where all the variables are known with some precision, but the climate, like economics, is not one of those environments.
And, as a point of interest, Mr Watts has already remarked that that the first 30 years of the 'data' used in the one paper of this study that he had been asked to comment on are simply made up. So no change there then.