Original sentence: A paper claiming to show this was rejected by Nature - though why it was rejected is not made clear.Most notable is a mistake with regard to radians and degrees which Lambert claimed invalidates the conclusions of one of McKitricks papers.Muller has promoted their claims.The author's response acknowledges the programming error but asserts the effects were minor and did not undermine the paper's conclusions
Edited sentence: A paper claiming to show this was rejected by Nature.Most notable is a failure to distinguish radians and degrees which Lambert claimed invalidates the conclusions of one of McKitricks papers.Muller has promoted their claims  but it is by no means clear that their claims are correct.The author's response (nb this is the authors response; it is not yet clear whether the journal will accept it) acknowledges the programming error (it glides over the mistaking of degrees and radians as "There was a small error" without acknowleding the details) but asserts the effects were minor and did not undermine the paper's conclusions