Previous RT has a lot of interesting info and probably less spin than the 97% study @slatestarcodex has been mentioning.
It makes a lot of the 3% (or whatever) most skeptical people getting 5-10% (or whatever) of the media attention. Meh.
-
-
One interesting finding that the authors don't comment on is lukewarmers (ECS 1.75-2.75) being underrepresented in the media.
-
Indeed, if you eyeball figure 9, it looks like there's no correlation between media attention and sensitivity estimate.
-
Almost all the >4.5 ECS estimators attribute <100% of warming to greenhouse gases. Could that even possibly make sense? (Honest question.)
-
My understanding is that based on the data here, the median scientist estimates about half a degree less sensitivity than the
-
average of the models that the IPCC uses to generate projections.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.