Australia See's the Light...

[Foxfyre]

Sorry Abraham but I don't usually read or respond to arguments chopped up like that. And I certainly don't accept an argument that something just isn't so unless you can articulate a reasoned rationale for rejecting a concept or at least provide a credible source. But have a good day.

Meanwhile:


Re John Howard's (former Australian prime minister) speech of two weeks ago:

Tuesday night’s speech was titled “One religion is enough”.

In notes for the speech distributed beforehand, Mr Howard said he chose the title “in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate … costly responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe.”…

“The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet.”…

He accused the IPCC of including “nakedly political agendas” in its advice…

Mr Howard also criticised “zealous advocates of action of global warming” and “alarmists” for attempting to exploit the NSW bushfires in October.

He pointed out that a big bushfire in Victoria took place 163 years ago, “when the planet was not experiencing any global warming. You might well describe all of this as an inconvenient truth”…

Speaking in London ahead of the speech, Mr Howard said climate change activists saw the issue as a substitute religion – “it’s the latest progressive cause,” he said…

“I am unconvinced that catastrophe is around the corner… I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated.”
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard Admits He Caved In On Global Warming, Not From Conviction But Fear | PA Pundits - International

So it is ironic that Tony Abbott, the 'conservative' as Americans would define him, has personally embraced the AGW religion but has dumped the more indefensible policies associated with it and surrounds himself with people who reject it.
Australia's New Prime Minister Surrounded By Climate Science Denying Voices and Advisors | DeSmogBlog

While his predecessor, the 'liberal' as Americans would define him, who put all those policies into place, or tried to, is the one now admitting that there is insufficient evidence to support the AGW religion and that would make him a skeptic.

That's a head-spinner.. Gotta be that NEITHER of them wants to become a useful tool for the AGW movement.

Must let all that sink in.. But it's not a good omen for the movement -- err hmmm -- religion..

I'll have to admit it gave me a chuckle. Politics absolutely produces strange bedfellows.

 

[lakeview]

Did he mention LakeView --- that over 3/4s of the papers reviewed fell into the no opinion category?

I dont think whats left represents "all climate scientists" in any statistics class exam.

Exactly. AGW proponents go to great lengths to twist things in this manner and then ***** and moan about there being so many deniers after people take issue with the methodology. They bring it on themselves.

Would you put Singer's work forward as an example of a properly conducted survey?

Nice try at deflection. The issue is the method used to arrive at the 97% figure you've been talking about. That method is highly questionable and misleading yet the 97% figure is still used, quite a bit I might add. It's nice of you to try to broaden my horizons by bringing up something that has nothing to do with this though.

Since you asked, I'm not a climate scientist. I can't say that there definitely is or isn't AGW, if there is I can't say what effect if any it has but I am a college graduate and I do know when someone is trying to bullshit me.

 

[Abraham3]

Exactly. AGW proponents go to great lengths to twist things in this manner and then ***** and moan about there being so many deniers after people take issue with the methodology. They bring it on themselves.

Would you put Singer's work forward as an example of a properly conducted survey?

Nice try at deflection. The issue is the method used to arrive at the 97% figure you've been talking about. That method is highly questionable and misleading yet the 97% figure is still used, quite a bit I might add. It's nice of you to try to broaden my horizons by bringing up something that has nothing to do with this though.

Since you asked, I'm not a climate scientist. I can't say that there definitely is or isn't AGW, if there is I can't say what effect if any it has but I am a college graduate and I do know when someone is trying to bullshit me.

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

 

[lakeview]

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right. When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right. When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

That propensity for AGW proponents, both the religionists on message boards, and the "scientists" and politicians who are pushing it, to skew the data, to use flawed data, or promote discredited theories even after the evidence is out there that the data is skewed, flawed, or misrepresented. . . . .

. . . .that alone would make me a skeptic even if I hadn't done a lot of other reading on the subject.

If it is honest science, why the deception? If the concept is sound and can stand on its own, why do we again and again see them fudging the numbers, using discredited theories, admiting they punched up the numbers or left out mitigating data?

So because those of us do smell a rat, we are inspired to start looking for the why. And all you have to do is follow the money and/or understand that powerful governments become drunk with the power and crave more and more of it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess what we're trying to tell you Abe, is that we don't TRUST any of the other "studies" you admire, because it's clear you don't understand why your FAVORITE study is crap. That and they are all OLD by polling standards anyway now..

Go find a 2012 or 2013 "poll" and start another thread.. If "consensus" is that important to you..

 

[Abraham3]

I guess what we're trying to tell you Abe, is that we don't TRUST any of the other "studies" you admire, because it's clear you don't understand why your FAVORITE study is crap. That and they are all OLD by polling standards anyway now..

Go find a 2012 or 2013 "poll" and start another thread.. If "consensus" is that important to you..

I guess what you don't understand is how fundamentally amoral is your position. You know those polls and survey provide more than enough evidence that, indeed, the vast majority of climate scientists are convinced of the validity of the AGW theory.

And as far as I can see, YOU were the one who started talking about polls in this thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

How far out to sea are you right now?

Thought you were going vessel testing and would be gone for awhile?

Nawww --- you decided to REPEAT your lie about the Cooked and Nutti "study". Even after you claimed that those skepticalscience bozos NEVER CLAIMED "all climate" scientists, but qualified their findings to "all climate scientists who expressed an opinion in their journal article"..

Figured you'd understand that if your claim was true that C&N never said "all climate scientists" that you shouldn't either..

But now -- with you out to sea and all --- I'm startin to wonder..

 

[Abraham3]

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right.

Saying it does not make it so (I bet you've heard that before). You have yet to even sully the Cook & Nuccitelli work, much less any of the others. And the ONLY thing you've offered in return is an incredibly flawed piece of work that you should all be embarrassed to have even mentioned with a straight face.

When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

Okay, here's your last chance. Explain to us, in clear terms, why you believe the conduct of the Cook and Nuccitelli survey was deliberately deceptive. If your position is simply the views that have already been expressed in this thread and others, allow me to boil it down a bit:

The failure to express an opinion unequivocally in support of the IPCC position, using the IPCC's own terminology and explicitly mentioning the IPCC's work, is indisputable evidence that the authors of such a study reject it wholeheartedly

Does that about sum it up? Yes? Good.

Now, do you really want to stay with that one? I mean, are you comfortable with the logic there? Do let us know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hopeless.. You wouldn't recognize logics or statistics if it would save your life.

 

[lakeview]

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right.

Saying it does not make it so (I bet you've heard that before). You have yet to even sully the Cook & Nuccitelli work, much less any of the others. And the ONLY thing you've offered in return is an incredibly flawed piece of work that you should all be embarrassed to have even mentioned with a straight face.

When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

Okay, here's your last chance. Explain to us, in clear terms, why you believe the conduct of the Cook and Nuccitelli survey was deliberately deceptive. If your position is simply the views that have already been expressed in this thread and others, allow me to boil it down a bit:

The failure to express an opinion unequivocally in support of the IPCC position, using the IPCC's own terminology and explicitly mentioning the IPCC's work, is indisputable evidence that the authors of such a study reject it wholeheartedly

Does that about sum it up? Yes? Good.

Now, do you really want to stay with that one? I mean, are you comfortable with the logic there? Do let us know.

Show me anywhere in this thread, or any other thread, where I introduced any study on global warming. You're not even trying to be honest are you?

And one more time, I am talking to you about the methods you posted in this thread. Stop trying to deflect and shift blame to some study, I am now and have always been taking issue with the flawed polling method that you yourself described in this thread and refuse to defend.

At this point I have to say that you've gone well beyond dishonest and are now deranged, you're not basing your responses on anything that is posted in response to you. And you wonder why no one trusts you, don't you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Five different published surveys have shown AGW acceptance among climate scientists to be in the 90% range. Yet some of the folks here have pushed a "survey" that claims the actual acceptance rate is 0.3%. So, who is it that's trying to bullshit you?

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right.

Saying it does not make it so (I bet you've heard that before). You have yet to even sully the Cook & Nuccitelli work, much less any of the others. And the ONLY thing you've offered in return is an incredibly flawed piece of work that you should all be embarrassed to have even mentioned with a straight face.

When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

Okay, here's your last chance. Explain to us, in clear terms, why you believe the conduct of the Cook and Nuccitelli survey was deliberately deceptive. If your position is simply the views that have already been expressed in this thread and others, allow me to boil it down a bit:

The failure to express an opinion unequivocally in support of the IPCC position, using the IPCC's own terminology and explicitly mentioning the IPCC's work, is indisputable evidence that the authors of such a study reject it wholeheartedly

Does that about sum it up? Yes? Good.

Now, do you really want to stay with that one? I mean, are you comfortable with the logic there? Do let us know.

While not specifically stating that their work was deliberately inaccurate, I will refer you back to a previous (yesterday's) post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8172276-post116.html

I noted while you cited credentials for Cook, you did not post any biographical information. I've been trying to research that guy for two days now, and can find nothing to verify that he has credentials in much of anything. Queensland says he is a 'fellow' but it is really vague. His own profile says he earned a bachelor of science back in 1989 and currently holds three positions with two different Australian universities but lists no academic degrees. I found one source that says his current research interests are in psychology and cognitive sciences. His own bio at SkepticalScience admits he is not a climate scientest.

I can find zero evidence that he has completed a masters, much less a PhD. If he didn't how can he be a post doctorate fellow at Queensland?

And the bottom line is, why should his opinion take precedence over a person who does have bonafide climate scientist credentials who disagrees with him?

 

[flacaltenn]

Already tried to correct your inability to see the LOGIC and MATH about 6 pages ago Abe..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/324283-australia-see-s-the-light-3.html#post8153743

Can you not remember what ship you're on or what day it is?

 

[flacaltenn]

You are. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make what you've done right.

Saying it does not make it so (I bet you've heard that before). You have yet to even sully the Cook & Nuccitelli work, much less any of the others. And the ONLY thing you've offered in return is an incredibly flawed piece of work that you should all be embarrassed to have even mentioned with a straight face.

When you keep pushing the 90% range or the 97% figure even after describing how it was arrived at you are deliberately attempting to deceive. The methodology used, as described by you in this thread, is designed from the outset to mislead the public, and you know that but keep doing it anyway. And you wonder why people don't trust AGW proponents, don't you?

Okay, here's your last chance. Explain to us, in clear terms, why you believe the conduct of the Cook and Nuccitelli survey was deliberately deceptive. If your position is simply the views that have already been expressed in this thread and others, allow me to boil it down a bit:

The failure to express an opinion unequivocally in support of the IPCC position, using the IPCC's own terminology and explicitly mentioning the IPCC's work, is indisputable evidence that the authors of such a study reject it wholeheartedly

Does that about sum it up? Yes? Good.

Now, do you really want to stay with that one? I mean, are you comfortable with the logic there? Do let us know.

While not specifically stating that their work was deliberately inaccurate, I will refer you back to a previous (yesterday's) post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8172276-post116.html

I noted while you cited credentials for Cook, you did not post any biographical information. I've been trying to research that guy for two days now, and can find nothing to verify that he has credentials in much of anything. Queensland says he is a 'fellow' but it is really vague. His own profile says he earned a bachelor of science back in 1989 and currently holds three positions with two different Australian universities but lists no academic degrees. I found one source that says his current research interests are in psychology and cognitive sciences. His own bio at SkepticalScience admits he is not a climate scientest.

I can find zero evidence that he has completed a masters, much less a PhD. If he didn't how can he be a post doctorate fellow at Queensland?

And the bottom line is, why should his opinion take precedence over a person who does have bonafide climate scientist credentials who disagrees with him?

All you really need to know is that this "survey" idea was hatched by the Wizard of the worst science website on climate ----- skepticalscience.com. That would be Nutticielli.. It was a PR event just in time for an upcoming Climate conference.. And its success depended on useful tools like Abraham misinterpreting the results and spreading unsubstatiated hyped claims about what the "work" represented.. Much like Everything Else that appears on skepticalscience.com...

 

[Abraham3]

How far out to sea are you right now?

Thought you were going vessel testing and would be gone for awhile?

I am sitting comfortably in my barracks room. I went to sea yesterday afternoon at about 1500 and, after having worked the entire night, came ashore about 0800. I am going back out to sea on a different vessel at 0400 tomorrow morning. You're not trying to catch me in some sort of FIB are you? Tch tch tch.

Nawww --- you decided to REPEAT your lie about the Cooked and Nutti "study".
Even after you claimed that those skepticalscience bozos NEVER CLAIMED "all climate" scientists, but qualified their findings to "all climate scientists who expressed an opinion in their journal article"..

What happens when you call someone a liar to their face without justification? Just keep that image in mind.

Here is the abstract to the ERL letter followed by a link to the entire document. Please show us where you believe the authors make a false claim:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

Figured you'd understand that if your claim was true that C&N never said "all climate scientists" that you shouldn't either..

I COULD have said "97.2% of all climate scientists expressing an opinion agree with the IPCC position, but I chose to use my brain. I flatly reject the 'denialist' position that a failure to express an opinion is evidence of rejection. Instead, I find that the samples produced both by the review of abstracts and the author's self-assessment are accurately representative of the experts in the field most qualified to address the topic under discussion. Thus I reached the conclusion I voiced and I haven't the slightest doubt in it.

That you are arguing this point would clearly seem to indicate that you believe Fred Singer's work is statistically valid; that only 0.3% of climate scientists accept the IPCC's position. Is that true? Singer addressed precisely the point for which you claim Cook et al's work to be invalid. Tell us you agree with Singer's results or tell us why you don't.

But now -- with you out to sea and all --- I'm startin to wonder..

You've already repeatedly called me a liar. If you choose to think I'm lying about what I do for a living, just come out and say so. Your current stratagem is more than a little puerile for someone over the age of 14.

 

[Foxfyre]

How far out to sea are you right now?

Thought you were going vessel testing and would be gone for awhile?

I am sitting comfortably in my barracks room. I went to sea yesterday afternoon at about 1500 and, after having worked the entire night, came ashore about 0800. I am going back out to sea on a different vessel at 0400 tomorrow morning. You're not trying to catch me in some sort of FIB are you? Tch tch tch.

Nawww --- you decided to REPEAT your lie about the Cooked and Nutti "study".
Even after you claimed that those skepticalscience bozos NEVER CLAIMED "all climate" scientists, but qualified their findings to "all climate scientists who expressed an opinion in their journal article"..

What happens when you call someone a liar to their face without justification? Just keep that image in mind.

Here is the abstract to the ERL letter followed by a link to the entire document. Please show us where you believe the authors make a false claim:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

Figured you'd understand that if your claim was true that C&N never said "all climate scientists" that you shouldn't either..

I COULD have said "97.2% of all climate scientists expressing an opinion agree with the IPCC position, but I chose to use my brain. I flatly reject the 'denialist' position that a failure to express an opinion is evidence of rejection. Instead, I find that the samples produced both by the review of abstracts and the author's self-assessment are accurately representative of the experts in the field most qualified to address the topic under discussion. Thus I reached the conclusion I voiced and I haven't the slightest doubt in it.

That you are arguing this point would clearly seem to indicate that you believe Fred Singer's work is statistically valid; that only 0.3% of climate scientists accept the IPCC's position. Is that true? Singer addressed precisely the point for which you claim Cook et al's work to be invalid. Tell us you agree with Singer's results or tell us why you don't.

But now -- with you out to sea and all --- I'm startin to wonder..

You've already repeatedly called me a liar. If you choose to think I'm lying about what I do for a living, just come out and say so. Your current stratagem is more than a little puerile for someone over the age of 14.

Well if you can use highly questionable and ideologically skewed websites as the basis for your arguments, you can't really object if we do the same can you?

So in rebuttal:

The new paper from climate clowns Cook & Nuccitelli et al has just been published open-access online in Environmental Research Letters. According to the authors, of 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011, "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming." Of the only 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW, one would expect 100% endorsement of AGW by the authors of those 32.6% of papers, yet Cook finds somewhat less agreement of 97.1% even amongst scientists who already endorsed AGW in their papers. Even if one trusts the methods of Cook & Nuccitelli et al, who have repeatedly been shown to distort & torture data and apply inappropriate statistical methods, their paper only indicates a 32.6*0.971 = 31.6% non-consensus endorsement of AGW in the climate literature.
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds only 32.6% of climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming

And within this paragraph is the link again to this very well researched summary at Wattsupwiththat:
cook Nuccitelli | Search Results | Watts Up With That?

Wattsup, however, is a highly respected investigated and research site often quoted by those both on the left and right and cannot be legitamately accused of ideological bias.

 

[flacaltenn]

Abe:: I simply accepted your word that Cooker and Nutti didn't lie.. But YOU ARE --- when you continue to assert daily ANYTHING about "97% of ALL Climate Scientists....... " (without the qualification)

OTH ---- when Cooker and Nutti SAW that 66% of their reviewed papers showed NO OPINION, ETHICAL pollsters would have probably junked the methodology and the results.

And what I DO BELIEVE --- having skimmed this POS ----- is that their "classification" process of comments, and their MOTIVATION for gaining a PR product was Tremendous bias --- and is why ed many journals refused to print their later propaganda.

 

[westwall]

I guess what we're trying to tell you Abe, is that we don't TRUST any of the other "studies" you admire, because it's clear you don't understand why your FAVORITE study is crap. That and they are all OLD by polling standards anyway now..

Go find a 2012 or 2013 "poll" and start another thread.. If "consensus" is that important to you..

I guess what you don't understand is how fundamentally amoral is your position. You know those polls and survey provide more than enough evidence that, indeed, the vast majority of climate scientists are convinced of the validity of the AGW theory.

And as far as I can see, YOU were the one who started talking about polls in this thread.

And there it is. You see dear silly person "morality" is the realm of religion....NOT SCIENCE. Science deals in fact, not morals. When you began appealing to morals you abandoned any pretense of following scientific procedure and entered full on into the arena of political activism and religious cultism.

 

[westwall]

Hopeless.. You wouldn't recognize logics or statistics if it would save your life.

Of course not, he's a religious fanatic, full tilt. You can't reason with them, they don't understand reason, or logic.

 

[Abraham3]

Well if you can use highly questionable and ideologically skewed websites as the basis for your arguments, you can't really object if we do the same can you?

I won't hold it against you for using such sites because, let's face it, it's pretty much all you've got. But it's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that at least some of your sources are "highly questionable and ideologically skewed". However...

The only website referenced in my post is IOPscience. If you think IOP is a biased site, I suggest you look a little further into the matter. There was also a secondary reference to Environmental Research Letters (a journal). If you think THEY are "highly questionable and ideologically skewed", I again suggest you've failed to do your homework.

So in rebuttal:

The new paper from climate clowns Cook & Nuccitelli et al has just been published open-access online in Environmental Research Letters.

I haven't seen Cook or Nuccitelli calling anyone "clowns". This must be a trait of superior intellectual prowess and debating rigour that I'd somehow missed.

According to the authors, of 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011, "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

No. The "authors of 11,944 climate abstracts" made no such statement. This is a quote from Cook & Nuccitelli's abstract, used without giving proper credit.

Of the only 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW, one would expect 100% endorsement of AGW by the authors of those 32.6% of papers, yet Cook finds somewhat less agreement of 97.1% even amongst scientists who already endorsed AGW in their papers.

No. I have just re-reviewed Cook et al's letter and I do not find this point nor do I find the value 97.1% applied anywhere to self-assessment results.

A more pertinent point along these lines is that a significant number of authors whose abstracts were rated as expressing no opinion or rejecting AGW, stated when asked that their papers (ie, not just the abstracts that Cook et al rated) supported the IPCC position. In Table 5 we see that the rate of IPCC endorsement went from 36.9% (per abstracts) to 62.7% (per self-ratings). The rate of no-position abstracts was found to be 62.5% but dropped to 35.5% among the self-rated evaluations. That is, more than half the authors whose abstracts had been rated to express no position stated that their papers expressly endorsed the IPCC position. And, finally, supporting your side's claims of growing disagreement, the number of papers rejecting the IPCC position in their abstracts tripled when authors were surveyed, going from 0.6% to 1.8%.

Even if one trusts the methods of Cook & Nuccitelli et al, who have repeatedly been shown to distort & torture data and apply inappropriate statistical methods,

Where? By who?

their paper only indicates a 32.6*0.971 = 31.6% non-consensus endorsement of AGW in the climate literature.

Again, NO. Your math is incorrectly applied. They found 32.6% of ALL abstracts to endorse AGW. Those endorsing papers made up 97.1% of all papers EXPRESSING AN OPINION. Multiplying those two numbers produces a meaningless value.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds only 32.6% of climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming

Over and over again the folks on your side of the argument keep trying to claim that not expressing an opinion is equivalent to rejecting the IPCC position and the theory of AGW. IT IS NOT. Anyone who says so, implicitly or explicitly IS LYING TO YOU

And within this paragraph is the link again to this very well researched summary at Wattsupwiththat:
cook Nuccitelli | Search Results | Watts Up With That?

Wattsup, however, is a highly respected investigated and research site often quoted by those both on the left and right and cannot be legitamately accused of ideological bias.

Where in GOD'S name did you get THAT idea?!?!?

A few days ago I suggested you look up the technical qualifications of Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, Bob Tisdale, Steve McIntyre and Christopher Monckton. I'm going to take a wild guess that you didn't do that.

Anthony Watts never finished college. There is actually some doubt whether or not he ever attended. He was a television weatherman who started a company providing weather-related computer graphics to local news outlets around the country and got quite rich. He got a bug up his butt about urbanization around NWS weather stations causing higher temperature readings - his original hypothesis was that this Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) was the actual cause of perceived global warming. That, of course, turned out to be complete nonsense but he's milked it for all its worth. Watts is NOT highly respected. Investigations of his work and almost all the third party material he hosts, have shown it to be seriously and consistently flawed. NO ONE among actual climate scientists quotes or cites Watts save when writing about the follies of climate change deniers. Sorry to bust your bubble, but as far as real science goes, Watts is less than nobody. Do feel free to look him up yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(meteorologist)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowAuthor.php?id=wattsa

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

http://www.whoislog.info/profile/anthony-watts-1.html