UPDATE: Nic Lewis left this interesting comment down below –
Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes. Not a mean in sight! And it refers to the mode as the “best estimate”. Nor does Figure 9.20 (where the estimated PDFs for climate sensitivity from Forest 2006 and other studies are shown, labelled EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity) mark the means. And Forest 2006 itself only reported the mode.
So I’m not being either misleading on any count, or misrepresenting anything. But Dana is both misrepresenting my study and being misleading. What a surprise.
Skeptical Science has another silly post up which attempts to pick at the edges of Nic Lewis’s climate sensitivity paper. They titled the critique “Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition” We all know that Skeptical Science is filled with those who…
View original post 944 more words