The article said that the "new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming." This is political; we get the assertion first and then we get data to back up the assertion. In science we look at the data first and then we look where the data points.
The supporting evidence is presented in the paper
That was the impression that I'd gotten too, but apparently it's neither been published nor been through the peer review. All the links to date refer to a study that is "to be published". Please let me know when it's available so you and I can review it together.
An experiment was designed to test a particular hypothesis and found that hypothesis wanting. As long as the methodology was good and the reporting honest that's a perfectly legitimate endeavor.
Consider Michaelson-Morley. It was thought at the time that an observer should see light traveling at different speeds depending on his, and the emitting source's, speed relative to the ether. The two scientists designed an experiment to test that...believing the hypothesis was correct. To their utter amazement they found it wasn't. They were so upset by the result they refused to accept it, repeating it over and over, always finding the same thing. They were honest and published what they'd found. It turned out their experiment was probably the most important in the history of science and resulted in the theory of relativity which overturned our most basic notions of space and time.
Go to post #30 and click on the first link. You'll be taken to a very interesting page which will allow you to download the complete article - free of charge. I think it's complete because it's 14 pages long (pdf). Haven't had a chance to review it yet.
I don't know how I missed this. I remember clicking on this link and getting an abstract. The link, in my browser, was red, indicating that I had indeed visited it before.