last year I pointed out that the only quantification of climate sensitivity (feedback) that was based on data rather than computer models showed a value of close to one rather than the two, three or five that alarmists like to use. a statistician, Nik Lewis (who's rebuttal of Steig's antarctica was also an interesting foray into peer review) also pointed out to the IPCC the irregular methodologies used to calculate the values which led to a correction being published. Lewis has now found serious apparent flaws in the supposed data used by Forest in two of the studies used, as well as follow on studies. after being rebuffed for the raw data and methodologies, he went to the publishing Journal, which asked Forest for the data. unfortunately the data is now 'lost'. how typical of climate science. deny, delay, destroy. Throwing down the gauntlet on reproducibility in Climate Science – Forest et al. (2006) | Watts Up With That? Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study | Climate Etc.