Christopher Monckton has a new post at WattsUpWithThat claiming that climate sensitivity is about 1.2°K, not the IPCC’s 3.3°K. So what? Monckton has many articles at WUWT, and lots of people have claimed a lower sensitivity of this order.
I’m signalling the article here, and encouraging the scientifically literate to comment, for two reasons.
(1) The article makes a truly important claim, summarised at the end thus:
To refute it, they would have to show […] that it is justifiable to assume that […] 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.
but is too technical for me (or many others, I imagine) to be able to judge its validity
(2) Most of the comments so far completely miss the non-scientific point of the article. A case “People of California v. British Petroleum plc et al.” is being heard this week before a rather unusual judge. Judge Alsup took a BSc. in engineering before studying law in order to work for the civil rights movement. Monckton has a paper outlining his claim about lower climate sensitivity currently under review. He and his co-authors have filed their paper before the court, which means that it is now publicly available. As a result, it is no longer bound by the normal rules of confidentiality applying to papers under review, and Monckton has therefore revealed the abstract and the contents of the paper in his article.
It is therefore possible to conduct open public peer review here and at WUWT alongside the confidential sort which is being conducted at the “leading climatological journal” to which the paper has been submitted.
If the judge accepts the submission of Monckton’s paper before the court, the claims in the paper will presumably count as evidence for the defence, and it will be open to the plaintiffs to call expert witnesses to counter them.