Somewhat along these lines, I found this article interesting:
Scientific American article: “How to Misinterpret Climate Change Research” https://www.google.com/amp/s/climateaudit.org/2015/04/24/scientific-american-article-how-to-misinterpret-climate-change-research/amp/
Apparently, Scientific America and other science reporting media, misinterpreted/misunderstood or distorted some of the science around climate. They corrected their mistake and appended this note at the end of their reprint:
"“
Correction: A previous version of this story did not accurately reflect Lewis’ work. Lewis used Stevens’ study in an analysis that was used by some media outlets to throw doubt on global warming.“
-Will (Dragonfly)
I'm not so sure the article says what you think it does.
The study by Bjorn Stevens used a different set of parameters than the IPCC researchers did, and Stevens's study came up with different numbers that indicated AGW was not so dire as the IPCC claimed. That was published in the peer reviewed scientific journal,
Journal of Climate. Other scientists disagreed with his singular study, saying different methods can give different results.
Nic Lewis reviewed it and posted a blog post in the
Climate Audit, a prominent climate change denial site. I don't believe they do peer reviews, at least by scientists.
Using the lower numbers of Steven's findings, Lewis raised doubts which climate deniers and right wing publications world wide jumped on as proof that AGW is not a major threat.
"Soon after, he (Stevens) took the unusual step, for a climate scientist, of issuing a press release to correct the misconceptions. Lewis had used an extremely rudimentary, some would even say flawed, climate model to derive his estimates, Stevens said.
"Narrowing climate sensitivity is challenging since the measure includes, and therefore compounds, the uncertainty inherent in aerosols, clouds and other phenomena. Different methods can give different results."
"Stevens said his study is something to be mulled over, but it does not call into question man-made global warming.
"I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously," he wrote, "even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."
What you think the article said
"Apparently, Scientific America and other science reporting media, misinterpreted/misunderstood or distorted some of the science around climate." is not what it said, which you would see if you had read the thing.
I might quit paying much attention to what you post also. You seem to acquire your information from the same discredited sites and people as Yobarnacle, jump to quick conclusions with little actual evidence and kind of post a lot of words that never actually say much.
I know Yobarnacle doesn't care much for credentials, or awards, but in this article you posted the skeptic denier Lewis is an ex financier, the Stevens science guy has a doctorate in atmospheric science. It's one way I check for the authenticity of anything posted here, if possible I find out the credentials of the authors. If they're bought and paid for by right wing, corporate money, fudging the numbers, I tend to be skeptical.