Here is the article I linked to above. Note that it implies a different conclusion about recent temperature trends. Do you have any evidence for preferring your letter to the editor over the article Eric discusses besides it confirming your pre-existing belief?

Not sure what you mean by "different conclusion". Both papers are based on the exact same data (the HadCRUT4 data set). There is no conflict between the articles that I can see. Curry's paper is about discrepancies between the data and the CMIP5 model simulations. The paper I linked is about the success of the HadCM2 model. It also says some stuff about the CMIP5 model, but as far as I can tell it doesn't say anything that is inconsistent with what Curry says.

So I don't "prefer" one article to the other. It seems to me that both articles are making perfectly valid points. Are you sure you're not falling for "arguments are soldiers" thinking? Just because I posted evidence that climate predictions don't "inevitably" fail doesn't mean I think that all climate model predictions are accurate at a 2% confidence level.

Have you even read the article you linked to? Here are the first four sentences:

Again, not sure what you're talking about. Why do those four sentences read like an attempt to explain away false predictions? The whole point that the authors are making is now that we do have independent observations taken over one and a half decades, we can evaluate the success or failure of models constructed in the mid-90s.