The most important part of what he said:
Though the IPCC acknowledged these indirect UV and cosmic ray effects may be important (although a source of considerable uncertainty), they latched onto the small 0.1 percent change in the 11-year cycle and a single paper by Lean with Wang,(8) which used a new untested model approach suggesting the suns longer-term role is not as great, to cut back solar forcing by a factor of 7 from the 2001 prior assessment. This, despite the slew of peer reviewed papers showing the sun as more important, not less. This is this current reports Hockey Stick, the original of which in 2001 did away with the great detective work of hundreds of the worlds best climatologists, and wiped out the medieval warm period and subsequent Ice Ages, making the current warming seem more important and mans role more plausible. The Hockey Stick has since been totally debunked in numerous peer review papers and did not appear in the latest IPCC report. I am confident that this recent assessments downgrading of the solar effect will meet a similar fate.
Yeah, I noticed that and the first thing that came to mind was a politically motivated and funded researcher out to create more ammo for the GW lobby. In other words, he earned his money.