Australia See's the Light...

[Abraham3]

But even if some AGW exists, there is yet no empirical or scientific evidence that it is causing any negative issues for the world's populations.

If I see someone stepping out in front of a speeding bus, am I justified in taking any action BEFORE the bus strikes him? I guess not. To accept your contention here I have to convince myself that humanity will suffer no harm from rising sea levels (flooding and increased storm surge damage), from an acidified ocean (loss of molluscs, loss of coral, loss of reefs, increased wave damage to formerly protected shorelines, loss of non-calcareous binding species due to impact on reproductive chemistry, loss of calcareous zooplankton, near the base of most marine foodchains), the loss of drinking water and irrigation water supplies due to loss of snowpack and glacier mass, the severe alteration if not cessation of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) from loss of Arctic ice cover, warming and fresh water intrusion, which will absolutely decimate equatorial fisheries, loss of crops from altered rainfall patterns, flooding, drought, etc, etc, etc. To say we perceive no real threat to humanity is, I'm sorry to say, one of the dumbest things I've heard in a good long while.

We know the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now and the plant and animal life that lived on it thrived.

But it has NOT been warmer since the rise of the hominids. And certainly there existed NOTHING like the present human infrastructure in times past. Additionally, at NO time since the KT Impact, have conditions changed as rapidly as they are changing now, leaving a completely inadequate amount to time for adaptation.

We know that the warmer climates have been far more beneficial to more species than have the mini 'ice ages' or full ice ages.

Just because a snowball Earth would be worse, does NOT mean that an overheated Earth is beneficial or even simply harmless.

And obviously we can't expect seven billion people to just stop living their lives--most especially when it those who are doing the best job of protecting their environment who are being expected to be the people doing even more of it and the worst polluters are being given a pass.

What has been happening is NOT what any climate expert would tell you actually NEEDS to happen. So you cannot judge AGW by what has taken place in response so far. That's like saying Hitler was okay cause Chamberlain did such a crappy job of dealing with him in Munich.

That alone should tell us that the goal is not to reduce CO2 and other green house gasses but is rather to put more and more people under authoritarian rule.

Even if your prior statement had some validity (which it does not) this would not follow. I don't know where you get this crap that people wanting to act against AGW are trying to take away your freedom and liberty and put you under authoritarian rule. You have yet to present the tiniest shred of evidence to support that charge and you'll have trouble doing so cause it is absolutely 100%, Grade AAAA SHITE.

 

[Moonglow]

The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

Strange thing to state when Australia is a socialist nation.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

What explains why 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid? They're stupendous sense of humor!

There is no 97% consensus. That paper from the consensus project was already debunked by a peer reviewed paper. The actual consensus found was .3%.

You're welcome. Let me know if you need help linking up to the peer reviewed paper that shatters Cooks false claims.

Reality check: Do YOU actually believe that only 0.3% of active climate scientists accept AGW? One climate scientist out of 300?!?!? Really?

Have you READ the paper supposedly refuting Cook? Do YOU approve and accept the methods employed?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What explains why 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid? They're stupendous sense of humor!

There is no 97% consensus. That paper from the consensus project was already debunked by a peer reviewed paper. The actual consensus found was .3%.

You're welcome. Let me know if you need help linking up to the peer reviewed paper that shatters Cooks false claims.

Reality check: Do YOU actually believe that only 0.3% of active climate scientists accept AGW? One climate scientist out of 300?!?!? Really?

Have you READ the paper supposedly refuting Cook? Do YOU approve and accept the methods employed?

Yes, i've read it. Not only does Legate et al explain succinctly where Cook erred in math and fundamental statistics based on consensus, but so do the peers who reviewed and published the piece in the Science and Education Journal. I'm not a scientist of this nature. My background is in engineering. What i believe is of little relevance.

And there is no supposedly about it. Cook's claim is false and his follow up work of in the same vein was rejected for publication outright.

What people believe, has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.

 

[lakeview]

The evidence IS there. Of the scientists YOU ASKED to study this issue; and that for several decades HAVE BEEN studying this issue, 97% are convinced that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced and a similarly large proportion of them believe that warming presents a real and significant threat to humanity. There are a great deal of evidence that have nothing at all to do with models: Temperature histories of air, land and water, melting snow, glacier, ice sheet and shelf, satellite measurements of the ToA energy imbalance, change after change after change in temperature-driven plant and animal patterns. You keep saying the evidence isn't there but that statement is demonstrably false. Neither is it true that all the hundreds off GCMs that verify the existence and predominance of anthropogenic global warming have failed. It is a fact that NO climate model that does not assume AGW is taking place can even approach reproducing the last 150 years of global temperature observations

Here's the problem you have that you can't get around: Climate scientists can't back up their beliefs in any tangible way so at this point if you believe what they have to say then you are taking it on faith. Foxfyre is right, there are no models which work. When the climate scientists who claim that AGW is real have working models which accurately show their beliefs to be true, and those models are available to third parties who can replicate those results then we can begin to have the AGW discussion because even if the models work that still doesn't mean that they are reflecting reality, but it would be a good start. Until that happens all AGW is is a two-bit religion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And just so we knwo what we're referring to:

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

 

[Foxfyre]

And just so we knwo what we're referring to:

Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer

Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no 97% consensus. That paper from the consensus project was already debunked by a peer reviewed paper. The actual consensus found was .3%.

You're welcome. Let me know if you need help linking up to the peer reviewed paper that shatters Cooks false claims.

Reality check: Do YOU actually believe that only 0.3% of active climate scientists accept AGW? One climate scientist out of 300?!?!? Really?

Have you READ the paper supposedly refuting Cook? Do YOU approve and accept the methods employed?

Yes, i've read it. Not only does Legate et al explain succinctly where Cook erred in math and fundamental statistics based on consensus, but so do the peers who reviewed and published the piece in the Science and Education Journal. I'm not a scientist of this nature. My background is in engineering. What i believe is of little relevance.

And there is no supposedly about it. Cook's claim is false and his follow up work of in the same vein was rejected for publication outright.

What people believe, has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.

Not to mention the PARTICULAR reasons for rejecting this POS...

1) Lead author is the Grand Wizard behind skepticalscience.com. A known rabid partisian and manipulator of data and facts.

2) Authors SELECTED about 35 studies out of several hundred that even MADE a statement about man's contributions.. Meaning that the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists --- EXPRESSED NO OPINION on the topic..

3) They were not polling INDIVIDUAL authors of those papers. Instead throwing ALL authors into the same category WITHOUT proof of their "beliefs".. Not uncommon to have 10 or 12 authors on a paper with SOME OF THEM coming from disciplines largely OUTSIDE of the debate.

It's shit in every way.. YET --- Abraham and others CONTINUE to peddle this factoid even after they've been TOLD why it's shit.. Won't be a week -- before one of them DUMPS on another thread...

 

[Abraham3]

In a little more detail, however, here is the basic premise of the Legate et al. study. The IPPC position is that more than 50% of the warming since about 1950 is due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. Cook et al. had 7 different endorsement categories that they explain quite clearly. These range from explicitly endorse (with quantification), explicitly endorse (without quantification), implicitly endorse, have no position, implicitly reject, explicitly reject (without quantification), and explicitly reject (with quantification). The basic result of the Cook et al. study was that of those papers that stated a position with respect to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorsed AGW. Legates et al. claim that only those that are explicitly and quantifiably consistent with the IPCC position (that half the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic) can be regarded as endorsements. They find 41 such abstracts (Cook et al. find 64). There were a total of 11944 abstracts rated and hence Legate et al. claim the endorsement fraction is 0.3%, not 97%.

Firstly, and obviously, Legate et al. have decided to include all the abstracts when determining the level of consensus. Why would that be reasonable (and yes, this is a rhetorical question)? Clearly many take no position and hence should not be included in the calculation. There is, I think, a more fundamental problem with the assumptions in Legate et al. Yes, the IPCC position may be that at least half the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, but it’s also that any future warming will be anthropogenic. There is no scenario in which we can have continued warming that isn’t anthropogenic. There is no known natural process that can produce future warming at the level of 2 to 3 degrees by the end of the 21st century. A large fraction of the abstracts surveyed by Cook et al. considered the future impact of climate change/global warming or whether or not we should mitigate against climate change/global warming. Any abstract that indicated that their model suggested that there would be an impact, in the future, due to global warming is, by default, endorsing the IPCC position. Any abstract that indicated that their model indicates that we should act to mitigate against global warming (or discussed the need to mitigate against future global warming) also endorsed the IPCC position. If AGW is wrong, there is no future warming (or no evidence that we should expect any future warming) and hence there will be no impact and no need to mitigate.

Now, I have a feeling that the Cook et al. raters were quite cautious and didn’t simply rate all impact and mitigation papers – that indicated that there would be an impact or a need to mitigate – as endorsing the IPCC position. I think they actually required that the abstract made a more definitive statement with regards to AGW. As I mentioned in an earlier post I rated 133 abstracts and found a very similar fraction of endorse and no position abstracts as found by Cook et al. (I didn’t find any reject, but only because I didn’t rate enough abstracts).

Now some seem to argue that some of these papers are written by people who are not actually studying if there will be future warming or if the warming since 1950 was mostly anthropogenic. The argument is then that these papers shouldn’t be included because such authors aren’t expert enough to know if the science associated with AGW is right or wrong. The point is, however, that the Cook et al. study was not intended to determine if the science is right or wrong. It was simply attempting to establish the level of consensus in the literature. It’s extremely common to use results from one study in a different study. Those carrying out the new study don’t need to redo all the work from the first study, they simply use the results. Of course they shouldn’t simply use it as a black box. They should understand what it applies to, when it’s appropriate and anything else they need to know to establish if they’re using the results properly. It’s therefore entirely reasonable to use how often something is used in the literature as a measure of acceptance/endorsement. If there are many different models as to how something might work, you’d expect to see that reflected in the literature. Over time, you’d expect certain models to disappear as it becomes clear that they’re not correct and eventually one might dominate. That would indicate the level of endorsement for that particular model.

So, I should acknowledge that I wasn’t involved in the Cook et al. study so really can’t say for certain that there aren’t problems with their result. As I’ve said before, though, this should be established by doing another study, not by trying to pick holes in what they’ve done (especially if this is done by redefining what they did). I should also add that my assessment here is my interpretation of the actual IPCC position and hence why I think the Cook et al. endorsement categories are appropriate. If anyone thinks I’ve interpreted this incorrectly, feel free to comment. It does seem, though, that a lot of the discussion around the Cook et al. study is based on a mis-understanding of the IPCC position. One might hope that this could be cleared up quite easily. One might quite easily be wrong though.
Watt about Monckton and the 97%? | Wotts Up With That Blog

 

[westwall]

The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

Strange thing to state when Australia is a socialist nation.

Yes, and even THEY have their limits to this bullshit. What does that tell you!

 

[lakeview]

In a little more detail, however, here is the basic premise of the Legate et al. study. The IPPC position is that more than 50% of the warming since about 1950 is due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. Cook et al. had 7 different endorsement categories that they explain quite clearly. These range from explicitly endorse (with quantification), explicitly endorse (without quantification), implicitly endorse, have no position, implicitly reject, explicitly reject (without quantification), and explicitly reject (with quantification). The basic result of the Cook et al. study was that of those papers that stated a position with respect to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorsed AGW. Legates et al. claim that only those that are explicitly and quantifiably consistent with the IPCC position (that half the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic) can be regarded as endorsements. They find 41 such abstracts (Cook et al. find 64). There were a total of 11944 abstracts rated and hence Legate et al. claim the endorsement fraction is 0.3%, not 97%.

Firstly, and obviously, Legate et al. have decided to include all the abstracts when determining the level of consensus. Why would that be reasonable (and yes, this is a rhetorical question)? Clearly many take no position and hence should not be included in the calculation. There is, I think, a more fundamental problem with the assumptions in Legate et al. Yes, the IPCC position may be that at least half the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, but it’s also that any future warming will be anthropogenic. There is no scenario in which we can have continued warming that isn’t anthropogenic. There is no known natural process that can produce future warming at the level of 2 to 3 degrees by the end of the 21st century. A large fraction of the abstracts surveyed by Cook et al. considered the future impact of climate change/global warming or whether or not we should mitigate against climate change/global warming. Any abstract that indicated that their model suggested that there would be an impact, in the future, due to global warming is, by default, endorsing the IPCC position. Any abstract that indicated that their model indicates that we should act to mitigate against global warming (or discussed the need to mitigate against future global warming) also endorsed the IPCC position. If AGW is wrong, there is no future warming (or no evidence that we should expect any future warming) and hence there will be no impact and no need to mitigate.

Now, I have a feeling that the Cook et al. raters were quite cautious and didn’t simply rate all impact and mitigation papers – that indicated that there would be an impact or a need to mitigate – as endorsing the IPCC position. I think they actually required that the abstract made a more definitive statement with regards to AGW. As I mentioned in an earlier post I rated 133 abstracts and found a very similar fraction of endorse and no position abstracts as found by Cook et al. (I didn’t find any reject, but only because I didn’t rate enough abstracts).

Now some seem to argue that some of these papers are written by people who are not actually studying if there will be future warming or if the warming since 1950 was mostly anthropogenic. The argument is then that these papers shouldn’t be included because such authors aren’t expert enough to know if the science associated with AGW is right or wrong. The point is, however, that the Cook et al. study was not intended to determine if the science is right or wrong. It was simply attempting to establish the level of consensus in the literature. It’s extremely common to use results from one study in a different study. Those carrying out the new study don’t need to redo all the work from the first study, they simply use the results. Of course they shouldn’t simply use it as a black box. They should understand what it applies to, when it’s appropriate and anything else they need to know to establish if they’re using the results properly. It’s therefore entirely reasonable to use how often something is used in the literature as a measure of acceptance/endorsement. If there are many different models as to how something might work, you’d expect to see that reflected in the literature. Over time, you’d expect certain models to disappear as it becomes clear that they’re not correct and eventually one might dominate. That would indicate the level of endorsement for that particular model.

So, I should acknowledge that I wasn’t involved in the Cook et al. study so really can’t say for certain that there aren’t problems with their result. As I’ve said before, though, this should be established by doing another study, not by trying to pick holes in what they’ve done (especially if this is done by redefining what they did). I should also add that my assessment here is my interpretation of the actual IPCC position and hence why I think the Cook et al. endorsement categories are appropriate. If anyone thinks I’ve interpreted this incorrectly, feel free to comment. It does seem, though, that a lot of the discussion around the Cook et al. study is based on a mis-understanding of the IPCC position. One might hope that this could be cleared up quite easily. One might quite easily be wrong though.
Watt about Monckton and the 97%? | Wotts Up With That Blog

Allow me to condense for everyone:

1) I'm going with consensus science because it's all I have.
2) Peer review isn't fair because we want our opinion to carry the weight of fact.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Cool blog, dude.

 

[Abraham3]

Not to mention the PARTICULAR reasons for rejecting this POS...

1) Lead author is the Grand Wizard behind skepticalscience.com. A known rabid partisian and manipulator of data and facts.

A similar comment could certainly be made regarding Legates and Soon. Legates was involved with Soon and Bailunas - the paper that led to five resignations on the board of the journal that published it.

2) Authors SELECTED about 35 studies out of several hundred that even MADE a statement about man's contributions.. Meaning that the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists --- EXPRESSED NO OPINION on the topic..

Papers that expressed no opinion were not included in either side of Cook's count. If you agree with Legates and Soon, you think such authors should be held as rejecting the IPCC position. Is that your opinion?

3) They were not polling INDIVIDUAL authors of those papers. Instead throwing ALL authors into the same category WITHOUT proof of their "beliefs".. Not uncommon to have 10 or 12 authors on a paper with SOME OF THEM coming from disciplines largely OUTSIDE of the debate.

As I'd have thought you'd well know, they followed up their review of abstracts by asking several thousand authors to self-assess their beliefs regarding AGW and got HIGHER support for AGW by this method than by their assessment of their papers.

It's shit in every way.. YET --- Abraham and others CONTINUE to peddle this factoid even after they've been TOLD why it's shit.. Won't be a week -- before one of them DUMPS on another thread...

It's shit in every way... YET--FCT and others CONTINUE to peddle this delusion even after they've been TOLD why it's shit.. Won't be a week -- before one of them DUMPS on another thread...

 

[flacaltenn]

You've done it again Abe.. It's amazing that these whacky math and logic assertions are almost daily...

Firstly, and obviously, Legate et al. have decided to include all the abstracts when determining the level of consensus. Why would that be reasonable (and yes, this is a rhetorical question)? Clearly many take no position and hence should not be included in the calculation.

Your cannot make the statement that "97% of Climate Scientists Believe X" if you purposely EXCLUDE the general population and pick only the subset that EXPRESSED an opinion.. Like your lying heros at skepticalscience did. Its PATENTLY WRONG.

The only statement you could make is "97% of Climate Scientists who expressed an opinion on X, Believe X".. The difference in results are monumental. Because you've dismissed the vast majority of your sample and it no longer REPRESENTS all Climate Scientists.. He did not poll an UNBIASED subset of the population.... Chapter One --- Statistical Methods for ANY Discipline.

Seriously dude.. Put down the nail gun and read the manual before someone gets hurt...

 

[Abraham3]

Allow me to condense for everyone:

1) I'm going with consensus science because it's all I have.
2) Peer review isn't fair because we want our opinion to carry the weight of fact.

Allow me to translate into honest speech:

We are going to identify the actual state of the consensus because the core of the fossil-fuel funded denialist movement, just as were the fights of the tobacco industry and the intellligent design movement, is to create the false impression that no consensus exists.

To seriously suggest that ONLY papers that explicitly state they accept the IPCC position do so, and that no paper which only makes use of all the assumptions implicit in the IPCC position does so, is so patently dishonest an assessment it makes me ill.

What is wrong with you people?

 

[Abraham3]

You've done it again Abe.. It's amazing that these whacky math and logic assertions are almost daily...

Firstly, and obviously, Legate et al. have decided to include all the abstracts when determining the level of consensus. Why would that be reasonable (and yes, this is a rhetorical question)? Clearly many take no position and hence should not be included in the calculation.

Your cannot make the statement that "97% of Climate Scientists Believe X" if you purposely EXCLUDE the general population and pick only the subset that EXPRESSED an opinion.. Like your lying heros at skepticalscience did. Its PATENTLY WRONG.

The only statement you could make is "97% of Climate Scientists who expressed an opinion on X, Believe X".. The difference in results are monumental. Because you've dismissed the vast majority of your sample and it no longer REPRESENTS all Climate Scientists.. He did not poll an UNBIASED subset of the population.... Chapter One --- Statistical Methods for ANY Discipline.

Seriously dude.. Put down the nail gun and read the manual before someone gets hurt...

Then perhaps that's why Cook et al stated that 97.1% of the papers WHICH EXPRESSED AN OPINION supported AGW.

Amazing how these wee details slip right by you.

 

[Abraham3]

FCT, do you believe that a paper that makes no statement regarding the ipcc position or its implications can accurately be said to reject the ipcc position?

Yes or no?

 

[Foxfyre]

The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

Strange thing to state when Australia is a socialist nation.

Yes, and even THEY have their limits to this bullshit. What does that tell you!

The new guy though isn't so much of a socialist. He's pretty much a free market guy and, from what little I've read about him, if he gets any help from their Parliament, may be able to remedy some of the more disastrous policies that will not be sustainable over the long haul. And dumping the insane cap & trade nonsense is an excellent place to start.

 

[flacaltenn]

You've done it again Abe.. It's amazing that these whacky math and logic assertions are almost daily...

Firstly, and obviously, Legate et al. have decided to include all the abstracts when determining the level of consensus. Why would that be reasonable (and yes, this is a rhetorical question)? Clearly many take no position and hence should not be included in the calculation.

Your cannot make the statement that "97% of Climate Scientists Believe X" if you purposely EXCLUDE the general population and pick only the subset that EXPRESSED an opinion.. Like your lying heros at skepticalscience did. Its PATENTLY WRONG.

The only statement you could make is "97% of Climate Scientists who expressed an opinion on X, Believe X".. The difference in results are monumental. Because you've dismissed the vast majority of your sample and it no longer REPRESENTS all Climate Scientists.. He did not poll an UNBIASED subset of the population.... Chapter One --- Statistical Methods for ANY Discipline.

Seriously dude.. Put down the nail gun and read the manual before someone gets hurt...

Then perhaps that's why Cook et al stated that 97.1% of the papers WHICH EXPRESSED AN OPINION supported AGW.

Amazing how these wee details slip right by you.

But IF COOK and Nuticielli did that -- (I refuse to read crap from skepticalscience) --- then they depended on partisian shills like you to MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT their results as "97% consensus of ALL climate scientists".. Which makes you -- a useful power tool.

BUT --- I'm happy to learn that you ACKNOWLEDGE the mistake of your interpretation and understand that they EXPECTED you and the press to do their dirty work for them. Which is WHY --- these guys will probably NEVER get a page in a respected science journal again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Allow me to condense for everyone:

1) I'm going with consensus science because it's all I have.
2) Peer review isn't fair because we want our opinion to carry the weight of fact.

Allow me to translate into honest speech:

We are going to identify the actual state of the consensus because the core of the fossil-fuel funded denialist movement, just as were the fights of the tobacco industry and the intellligent design movement, is to create the false impression that no consensus exists.

To seriously suggest that ONLY papers that explicitly state they accept the IPCC position do so, and that no paper which only makes use of all the assumptions implicit in the IPCC position does so, is so patently dishonest an assessment it makes me ill.

What is wrong with you people?

seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Dude, stop sniffing glue. Seriously.