Lucia Liljegren's post on climate sensitivity written by Paul-K is rather technical but a must read for those that can handle such stuff. She's looking at a series of papers that have examined the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption on radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere, analyses that should lead, usually via comparison to a computer model, to an estimate of climate sensitivity.
So of these two papers, Wigley2006 offers a climate sensitivity but fails to reconcile to the measured flux data. Soden2002 does seek to match the observed flux data but does not report on the implied climate sensitivity.
I am now sufficiently cynical about mainstream climate science to believe that the reason for the non-barking dogs in the two cases is the same. I will show that you cannot get a reasonable match to the flux and temperature data with a high [equilibrium climate sensitivity]. Wigley would have had to show a serious mismatch with the flux data, and Soden would have had to report and explain the politically incorrect, low, climate sensitivity implied by his match of the flux data.
This seems very important to me.
Update: author name added 9.40am, 23.10.12.