You can deny that a best estimate for ECS exists or that it is ~3C but it does exist and it is ~3C. And it has been for decades.

You call that a convergent sequence of values ?

Please see what I wrote in Foreign Affairs five years ago.– policy analysts are stiill waiting for one significant digit.

BBD, the subject is not palaeoclimate

If you want to understand climate sensitivity, you look at palaeoclimate behaviour. Obviously.

What you just did at #18 was deny the scientific evidence, which converges on a best estimate of about 3C per doubling. With a fat tail in the uncertainty over higher values, of course.

‘The idea of reality being naturally detached to that of science, the Conservative-leaning man tends to assume as true that which is proposed by those who share similar political agendas, attributing to them a reputation of being wise.

‘In the case of anti-science bloggers, who aim but to please and persuade such persons, the appearance of truth is sufficient for most of their disciples. Thus, as exaggeration and hyperbole serve well their purpose, by willfully exaggerating their ideas, they cause climate science to appear questionable, its revealed implications small, as they please. The ornamental style of their discourse marvelously serves to create the belief of those who are not vigilant. They speak with rabid facility and gracelessness, using attractive, yet disagreeable and uncouth manners of expression to dazzle the mind and prevent it from perceiving the truth.’

The ornamental style of their discourse marvelously serves to create the belief of those who are not vigilant. They speak with facility and grace, using attractive, agreeable and uncommon manners of expression to dazzle the mind and prevent it from perceiving the truth.

For the opposite – unadorned scientific exposition of the data – see Rohling et al. (2012).

Low sensitivity (less that ~2C per doubling) is effectively incompatible with palaeoclimate behaviour. The long-established ~3C per doubling best estimate provides a better fit and the actual value could be higher.

Even if we take the (unwarranted) step of assuming S is right at the low end of the range there’s *still* no policy wriggle-room if we want to avoid the risk of serious impacts.

You sound as though you are proposing a conspiracy theory of some kind. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

Russell:
Guess again:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/flat-earth-library/newsletters

http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/07/paris-hails-greatest-austrian.html