Lead author David Douglass elaborates:

The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.

Scientific models are constantly being challenged. It is the scientific method. The IPCC report contains substantial discussion of models' limitations and refinements. Criticisms of models such as the one referred to in the clip are the bread and butter of scientific method. there are thousands of models that have been so replaced in climatology over the past decades. To assume that this is related to emergent theoretical consensus is extraordinarily unxcientific.

If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent, want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed?
ANSWER: It equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew ALL the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent.
In actuality, given the state of climate science, it would probably be far < 5%.

If you actually read the article, it has not "dealt another blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory". In fact, it doesn't disagree at all with anthropogenic global warming. N2sooners either didn't read the article or is misrepresenting it. This is usually the case with people who claim that anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

sfrants, you are in classic denial. I guess you're a 'denialist'.