Nope, never seen it. So that would make your theory 100% wrong. :) I wrote it all myself free-hand and with a free-mind. Your opinion isn't relevant, but thanks for sharing anyway. The parts that were copied and pasted in my comment were all quoted and referenced with urls. eg
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8_23 found in my PS section which actually quotes your quote above. :)
OK. I concede the point, on re-reading your post, that the quote was referenced.
You said originally that:
Cook's papers and Tol's and others (be they right or wrong or dubious) does NOT change the self-evident fact that there is still an absolute overwhelming consensus among climate scientists and scientists in general that AGW/CC it's causes and persistence and the science of it are overall fundamentally correct, rigorous, scientifically sound, valid and generally speaking ROBUST and (sorry) UNDENIABLE.
"Self-evident". You may deem it so, and on the basis of that, jump to the conclusion of consummate correctness, rigour, scientific soundness, validity, robustness and undeniability. I can't seem to find the justification for that assertion: if it were indeed self-evident that there's an overwhelming consensus, then all of us who disagree with you wouldn't be disagreeing and we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, saying that the Cook et al. paper is irrelevant on the one hand, and yet on the other (through mere assertion) endorsing the conclusion often drawn from it--be that justifiable or no--that the AGW viewpoint is rock solid. So much so that there's an "overwhelming" consensus amongst climate scientists
and scientists in general.
Let's look at a different paper than the Cook one. One that actually surveyed the opinions of working scientists:
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
This paper, according to Forbes magazine (
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#61968c65171b) indicates that "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
".
The article begins:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
Who were these scientists? They were working in the oil industry. Aha! I hear you say, 'nuff said. But in the paper itself, the author has this to say:
Given the dependence on the petroleum industry and relative homogeneity in licensure requirements, we might expect a consensus of opinion. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them.
Empirical design and methods
Since 1999, climate change had been debated among professionals in APEGA in over 150 articles and letters to the editor that had appeared in the association’s monthly publication The PEGG. The discussion was becoming increasingly heated among a vocal few and, for the association, it was unclear whether these few were representing the majority of members. Given this debate, APEGA initiated a broad survey of its 40,000 members (as of 2007) concerning their beliefs about climate change, sources of knowledge, and opinions about the appropriate roles for individuals, industry, APEGA, and government. The first author was engaged by APEGA to develop the survey and analyze the results. The survey questionnaire contained closed- and open-ended questions and was published in The PEGG and on the website in October 2007.2 A total of 1077 completed surveys were received and 12 respondents emailed or mailed in additional comments. While this is, effectively, a convenience (nonprobability) sample of self-selected respondents, the respondents are similar to the general APEGA membership when compared on professional designation, age, and gender as of October 2007 (see Table 1).3 In their responses to the open-ended questions, respondents provided rich justifications. By considering these statements and claims, we are given a window to ‘eavesdrop’ into how they draw from broader narratives to make sense of climate change and legitimize themselves as experts while de-legitimizing others.
The last sentence about legitimising their own views whilst de-legitimising those of others--as the paper explains--isn't unique to sceptics; it's something that applies equally to AGW supporters, in fact to any group of experts in any discipline where there are strongly held, opposing viewpoints.
The paper actually makes for fascinating reading: amongst other things, it gives the academic take on acrimonious debates like the one about AGW: how each side adopts strategies to support their own case and denigrate that of the other. Moreover, these strategies go well outside the realm of science and into the political and moral sphere.
Now: you may disagree with the paper, or with the conclusions drawn from it in Forbes. But you can't deny that it's peer-reviewed, and I take note of Forbes' opinion that:
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
The fact is, my friend, that we both draw on the narratives of our respective beliefs. What we can say on our own account, that we have personally thought ourselves based on incontrovertible evidence, is limited. I've already said why I'm firmly in the sceptic camp:
...my extreme scepticism about AGW is based on known cases where pro-AGW scientists have been caught out in lies. Not mistakes, but actual lies. It's also based on the many absurd claims of AGW proponents about the putative effects of AGW, not to mention that people on both sides of the argument say there has been a hiatus that needs to be explained. Even Nature admits it, whilst of course trying to give the impression that long-term AGW is ongoing...
This naturally predisposes me to interpret evidence that I'm not so sure of in a particular way, just as you're predisposed to interpret evidence in your way. However, though I'll admit it, will you?
The real argument between us doesn't depend wholly on science. It depends more on each of our world views, or our respective moral compasses if you like. Which, again, was what Alex's podcast sought to point out.