2011-11-05 13:14:04Critique of Curry guest post about IPCC climate sensitivity
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
58.170.57.120

Someone has emailed offering up a guest post on SkS:

Hey, I wanted to point to a criticism aimed at the IPCC report posted by a mathematician some months back to judithcurry.com.

Also, I want to point to my (amateur) response.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/#comment-132688

I don't know if this critique and "rebuttal" has use on this website, but I saw the critique as an attack on the IPCC, an important player in climatology, and found that there was a crucial flaw in each of the two major points made in that article. I am not judging the mathematical analysis. It seems the problem is one of definitions and transparency.

[If that link doesn't work, I can post you the full reply. It starts: "@Nic, I have a question, and then basically disagree with you in your view that the IPCC failed to apply justifiable approaches or at least was trying to hide their approach." .. yes, the comment could have been worded better.]

I am sure you guys understand this well enough to find if I failed to address Nic's claims.

I only briefly skimmed and stylistically, would need work to become a guest post but anyone want to critique the science, assess whether it's worth posting on SkS?

2011-11-05 18:54:14Oh God, Its Bayes
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.27.45

Generally speaking, the tenor of these posts is too technical for SkS given that we focus on the climate science rather than the esoterica of statistical analysis. Stats may be powerful but it goes straight over the heads of most folks - me included. Just because something is powerful doesn't mean it is communicable.