Six ways from Sunday

[RollingThunder]

The people who believe AGW to be a valid theory have created the most accurate models which have produced the most accurate predictions of any available. You and yours keep going on and on about errors in predictions and screwed up models. Well... WHERE ARE YOURS?

NO CLIMATE MODEL THAT FAILS TO USE AGW HAS EVER RECREATED THE CLIMATE'S BEHAVIOR OF THE LAST 150 YEARS. NONE.

No climate model in existence can recreate the weather we had yesterday you fool. Even with absolutely perfect knowledge of every variable they can't do crap. No climate model has ever predicted ANYTHING! The models are so bad that a recent MIT paper (you know who they are...right?) had this to say about them......

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
Robert S. Pindyck
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54
ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading

Quite an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

The ol' walleyedretard has once again clearly demonstrated that he is a lying troll. At least several times before now he's posted this same silly but very intentional lie where he twists the meaning of a paper about some economic models of climate change consequences by fraudulently claiming the paper is about actual climate models, and it has been debunked at least several times before but he continues to knowingly lie about it. His gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the study he cites was thoroughly and elegantly debunked again just recently on another thread. Here it is.

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

No, they're not. They are fictitious representations of the world skewed by the abilities (or, in the case of the climate modelers, their INABILITIES) governed by algoreithims that generate the results the climate modelers wish to generate. They bear no resemblance to the real world and as MIT stated in the paper released a few weeks ago they are "CLOSE TO USELESS"

ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.


http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:

There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost. Burning carbon has an external cost because it produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that accumulate in the atmosphere, and will eventually result in unwanted climate change — higher global temperatures, greater climate variability, and possibly increases in sea levels.

Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

Walleyed is a denier cult troll and a proven liar. You can (easily) refute his misinformation and lies and you probably should mock him for his imbecilic posts and ignorant rants, but don't ever expect a rational response or any acceptance of valid scientific evidence, no matter how well supported and accepted in the world scientific community. He is a hard core denier cult troll who will (assuming he's not a total whore who's just getting paid to spread misinformation) never admit he was wrong, even when the water is up to his knees. He will deny the reality right in front of his eyes if his political/economic puppet-masters tell him to. Don't forget and imagine that you're talking to someone with an actual thinking mind or you'll be in for some massive disappointments.

 

[Abraham3]

The people who believe AGW to be a valid theory have created the most accurate models which have produced the most accurate predictions of any available. You and yours keep going on and on about errors in predictions and screwed up models. Well... WHERE ARE YOURS?

NO CLIMATE MODEL THAT FAILS TO USE AGW HAS EVER RECREATED THE CLIMATE'S BEHAVIOR OF THE LAST 150 YEARS. NONE.

No climate model in existence can recreate the weather we had yesterday you fool. Even with absolutely perfect knowledge of every variable they can't do crap. No climate model has ever predicted ANYTHING! The models are so bad that a recent MIT paper (you know who they are...right?) had this to say about them......

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
Robert S. Pindyck
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54
ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading

Quite an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

The ol' walleyedretard has once again clearly demonstrated that he is a lying troll. At least several times before now he's posted this same silly but very intentional lie where he twists the meaning of a paper about some economic models of climate change consequences by fraudulently claiming the paper is about actual climate models, and it has been debunked at least several times before but he continues to knowingly lie about it. His gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the study he cites was thoroughly and elegantly debunked again just recently on another thread. Here it is.

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:



Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

Walleyed is a denier cult troll and a proven liar. You can (easily) refute his misinformation and lies and you probably should mock him for his imbecilic posts and ignorant rants, but don't ever expect a rational response or any acceptance of valid scientific evidence, no matter how well supported and accepted in the world scientific community. He is a hard core denier cult troll who will (assuming he's not a total whore who's just getting paid to spread misinformation) never admit he was wrong, even when the water is up to his knees. He will deny the reality right in front of his eyes if his political/economic puppet-masters tell him to. Don't forget and imagine that you're talking to someone with an actual thinking mind or you'll be in for some massive disappointments.

I think it really MEANS something when a poster (that would be WestWall, of course) can be PWNED this badly. Bravo to Rolling Thunder.

 

[flacaltenn]

Before we get to 'your help'... Some old biz..

When you try to make the point that there is OVERWHELMING consensus and the opposition should just relent and roll-over --- It doesn't help your cause to be citing surveys from 2004 and 2007 on the Wiki.. More than 1/2 of your OP is PRE-ClimateGate emails and NOT in any way informative of CURRENT opinion...

So we MIGHT want to pick one or two of your POST 2012 surveys for discussion.. I'd be happy to review those with you..

NOW --- as to your assertions above..

Your reading comprehension is very lacking.. The two Forbes articles are NOT about anyone from Heartland. I looked at the first Forbes article you cited and they MENTION some Heartland studies --- but the article itself is about ANOTHER STUDY.. This one from....



Understand that I WOULD REJECT polling from a group like Heartland --- but not neccessarily reject automatically any scientific assertions from them without vetting the assertions myself.. Just like I do constantly with the group of Misinformed and Propaganda Parroting warmers on USMB..

So --- thanks for that recent study.. I like the methodology. Much better to get a DEEPER picture of what tech people are saying on the subject.. So what do the results look like?



I'll buy that.. I'm not in 1, 4 or 5.. So that leaves 2 and 3.. Fair enough...
These numbers state that 56% reject the idea that "the science is settled"....

Go help some more......

Yes.. I quoted myself.. Are you bailing on your own topic? Did you miss this? Or just don't have a comment?

Yes. Bumped it again. Why DONT U want 2 getback on topic?

Yes... BUMPED IT AGAIN.. Because Abe doesn't REALLY want to get back on topic...

 

[Abraham3]

If you actually believe that you can reject five different studies all showing extremely high rates of AGW acceptance among active climate scientists and replace their results with those from a survey of a group of "geoscientists" and engineers "ALL EMPLOYED BY THE OIL INDUSTRY" you're out of your freaking minds.

I put up those surveys to try to show you how badly a survey could be done. But they said what you wanted to hear, I guess, cause you sucked them up like a cold lemonade on a hot day. If you guys want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest a little more thinking before acting - THAT foolishly anyway.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you actually believe that you can reject five different studies all showing extremely high rates of AGW acceptance among active climate scientists and attempt to replace their results with those from a survey of a group of "geoscientists" and engineers "ALL EMPLOYED BY THE OIL INDUSTRY" you're out of your freaking minds.

I put up those surveys to try to show you how badly a survey could be done. But they said what you wanted to hear, I guess, cause you sucked them up like a cold lemonade on a hot day. If you guys want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest a little more thinking.

Yet -- you HAPPILY list the American Geophysical Union as one of your Consensus points.

How many of THAT membership are employed or related to fossil fuel development??

I don't FREAKING CARE where the science comes from... Could be from Nazi Germany. After all --- that's the stuff that got us to moon first -- wasn't it?

I will vet every opinion that doesn't offend my intelligience..

Actually -- the nature of the questions and the scoring paradigm of that survey you won't discuss --- is much more informative than asking silly BROAD questions and tallying yay or nay..

Any survey you want to discuss.. As long as it's from 2012 or 2013 AND gives a full disclosure of methodology.. Game on dude. Feed me....

 

[flacaltenn]

Every time 97% is mentioned, those who reject AGW tell us how poorly the survey was done and what idiots we are to trust a sample of 77 individuals.

First, as you can see for yourself if you choose to read the following text (which I trust has been thrown at you before now) FIVE different polls/surveys/reviews have arrived at very similar numbers for the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists. FIVE. Have you got that now? Let's hope.

Second, though it is contended that more than one of the AGW deniers in this forum have some sort of science education that one might presume included at least Probability and Statistics 101, none of them seem familiar with sampling. Or perhaps they choose not to apply what they KNOW. To them I ask the simple questions: what is the likelihood that the opinion of 3,146 individuals out of a group of 10,247 is unrepresentative of the larger group? And what is the likelihood that the opinion of 77 randomly chosen individuals from the 3,146 is unrepresentative of that larger group?

Those of you that have had some statistics know that the answer to both questions is "very small indeed". Tell your friends.

Thought I'd comment where this Topic already exists, rather than walking thru the DUMP that Abraham makes in MANY threads about the 97% consensus.. Just want to keep the place tidy...

HERE is the convo between ONE of those climate scientists who was MISREPRESENTED in the POS Cook & Nuticielli "survey" and one of the Authors...

Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: Richard Tol Calls John Cook?s Survey ?Silly Idea?Poorly Implemented?

Not surprisingly Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience.com obstinately refuses to see the facts, even when they are staring him right in the face. Richard Tol at Twitter has thrown the now notorious John Cook survey, of which Nuccitelli was a co-author, into the dustbin of history.

Here’s the exchange between the two:

Tol’s last comment pretty much sums up the quality Cook’s and Nuccitelli’s work. I could say every day last year in my hometown was over 25°C (if I ignore 320 of them and misclassify a quarter of the 45 I did count).

Dana Nuccitelli is becoming a real asset for the skeptics, one that we certainly don’t want to lose.

As usual pal, you screwed up in the OP by APPLYING THE TOOL of statistic to the wrong problem... The issue here is NOT about "representative samples". The problem is the liars and cheats CHERRY PICKED the representative sample ----- to arrive at a conclusion TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED by their methodology of choosing that sample.. They chose from biased data ---- ON PURPOSE ---- because THEY WANTED to constuct a lie good enough fool folks like you.

They suceeded.. And now they are merely a trophy for folks like me who can point to their dishonesty and dismiss their filthy website and perversions of math and science for what they are...

 

[westwall]

The people who believe AGW to be a valid theory have created the most accurate models which have produced the most accurate predictions of any available. You and yours keep going on and on about errors in predictions and screwed up models. Well... WHERE ARE YOURS?

NO CLIMATE MODEL THAT FAILS TO USE AGW HAS EVER RECREATED THE CLIMATE'S BEHAVIOR OF THE LAST 150 YEARS. NONE.

No climate model in existence can recreate the weather we had yesterday you fool. Even with absolutely perfect knowledge of every variable they can't do crap. No climate model has ever predicted ANYTHING! The models are so bad that a recent MIT paper (you know who they are...right?) had this to say about them......

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
Robert S. Pindyck
NBER Working Paper No. 19244
July 2013
JEL No. D81,Q5,Q54
ABSTRACT
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to
estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models
have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the
discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models'
descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical
foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility
of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge
and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading

Quite an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf

The ol' walleyedretard has once again clearly demonstrated that he is a lying troll. At least several times before now he's posted this same silly but very intentional lie where he twists the meaning of a paper about some economic models of climate change consequences by fraudulently claiming the paper is about actual climate models, and it has been debunked at least several times before but he continues to knowingly lie about it. His gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the study he cites was thoroughly and elegantly debunked again just recently on another thread. Here it is.

That paper does not conclude that all models are useless. His conclusion is that IAMs (generated by economists) are useless in assessing the possibility, for the purposes of policy-making, of a catastrophic (economic) climate outcome. But those models are not the climate models we are discussing here. He also doesn't agree with your apparent conclusion that global warming is not real and is not manmade. In his introduction, he states:



Furthermore, in his concluding remarks, he states:

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more. Quite the contrary. One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance: society would be paying for a guarantee that a low-probability catastrophe will not occur (or is less likely). Some have argued that on precautionary grounds, there is a case for taking the Interagency Working Group’s $21 (or updated $33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and imposing a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.20 This would help to establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices that consumers and firms pay. (Yes, most economists already understand this, but politicians and the public are a different matter.) Later, as we learn more about the true size of the SCC, the carbon tax could be increased or decreased accordingly.

Did you even read it?

Walleyed is a denier cult troll and a proven liar. You can (easily) refute his misinformation and lies and you probably should mock him for his imbecilic posts and ignorant rants, but don't ever expect a rational response or any acceptance of valid scientific evidence, no matter how well supported and accepted in the world scientific community. He is a hard core denier cult troll who will (assuming he's not a total whore who's just getting paid to spread misinformation) never admit he was wrong, even when the water is up to his knees. He will deny the reality right in front of his eyes if his political/economic puppet-masters tell him to. Don't forget and imagine that you're talking to someone with an actual thinking mind or you'll be in for some massive disappointments.

Gosh, are you EVER going to grow up? I haven't seen such silliness since I graduated 3rd grade! And for the record I don't lie. I don't have too and I have demolished you on so many occasions I no longer bother to keep track. Just like I showed your fellow sock Saigon to be a pathological liar I have done the same to YOU on multiple occasions.

But, keep on with your delusions, it's pretty funny to watch you fall apart!

 

[Abraham3]

Then what is your response to the FACT that this paper to which you keep linking, claiming it has some bearing, deals solely with economics? Your response above attempts to ignore that point. And this is certainly not the first time it's been point out to you. What are we to make of that? Are you dense? Do you simply choose to be dishonest? Is you lack of actual supportive material making you desperate?

 

[Abraham3]

Every time 97% is mentioned, those who reject AGW tell us how poorly the survey was done and what idiots we are to trust a sample of 77 individuals.

First, as you can see for yourself if you choose to read the following text (which I trust has been thrown at you before now) FIVE different polls/surveys/reviews have arrived at very similar numbers for the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists. FIVE. Have you got that now? Let's hope.

Second, though it is contended that more than one of the AGW deniers in this forum have some sort of science education that one might presume included at least Probability and Statistics 101, none of them seem familiar with sampling. Or perhaps they choose not to apply what they KNOW. To them I ask the simple questions: what is the likelihood that the opinion of 3,146 individuals out of a group of 10,247 is unrepresentative of the larger group? And what is the likelihood that the opinion of 77 randomly chosen individuals from the 3,146 is unrepresentative of that larger group?

Those of you that have had some statistics know that the answer to both questions is "very small indeed". Tell your friends.

Thought I'd comment where this Topic already exists, rather than walking thru the DUMP that Abraham makes in MANY threads about the 97% consensus.. Just want to keep the place tidy...

HERE is the convo between ONE of those climate scientists who was MISREPRESENTED in the POS Cook & Nuticielli "survey" and one of the Authors...

Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: Richard Tol Calls John Cook?s Survey ?Silly Idea?Poorly Implemented?

Not surprisingly Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience.com obstinately refuses to see the facts, even when they are staring him right in the face. Richard Tol at Twitter has thrown the now notorious John Cook survey, of which Nuccitelli was a co-author, into the dustbin of history.

Here’s the exchange between the two:

Tol’s last comment pretty much sums up the quality Cook’s and Nuccitelli’s work. I could say every day last year in my hometown was over 25°C (if I ignore 320 of them and misclassify a quarter of the 45 I did count).

Dana Nuccitelli is becoming a real asset for the skeptics, one that we certainly don’t want to lose.

As usual pal, you screwed up in the OP by APPLYING THE TOOL of statistic to the wrong problem... The issue here is NOT about "representative samples". The problem is the liars and cheats CHERRY PICKED the representative sample ----- to arrive at a conclusion TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED by their methodology of choosing that sample.. They chose from biased data ---- ON PURPOSE ---- because THEY WANTED to constuct a lie good enough fool folks like you.

They suceeded.. And now they are merely a trophy for folks like me who can point to their dishonesty and dismiss their filthy website and perversions of math and science for what they are...

I see your statistical expertise shines once more. ONE opinion is a representative sample of 3,147. ONE opinion invalidates that of several thousand others. ONE opinion is not cherry picking.

Got it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every time 97% is mentioned, those who reject AGW tell us how poorly the survey was done and what idiots we are to trust a sample of 77 individuals.

First, as you can see for yourself if you choose to read the following text (which I trust has been thrown at you before now) FIVE different polls/surveys/reviews have arrived at very similar numbers for the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists. FIVE. Have you got that now? Let's hope.

Second, though it is contended that more than one of the AGW deniers in this forum have some sort of science education that one might presume included at least Probability and Statistics 101, none of them seem familiar with sampling. Or perhaps they choose not to apply what they KNOW. To them I ask the simple questions: what is the likelihood that the opinion of 3,146 individuals out of a group of 10,247 is unrepresentative of the larger group? And what is the likelihood that the opinion of 77 randomly chosen individuals from the 3,146 is unrepresentative of that larger group?

Those of you that have had some statistics know that the answer to both questions is "very small indeed". Tell your friends.

Thought I'd comment where this Topic already exists, rather than walking thru the DUMP that Abraham makes in MANY threads about the 97% consensus.. Just want to keep the place tidy...

HERE is the convo between ONE of those climate scientists who was MISREPRESENTED in the POS Cook & Nuticielli "survey" and one of the Authors...

Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: Richard Tol Calls John Cook?s Survey ?Silly Idea?Poorly Implemented?

Not surprisingly Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience.com obstinately refuses to see the facts, even when they are staring him right in the face. Richard Tol at Twitter has thrown the now notorious John Cook survey, of which Nuccitelli was a co-author, into the dustbin of history.

Here’s the exchange between the two:

Tol’s last comment pretty much sums up the quality Cook’s and Nuccitelli’s work. I could say every day last year in my hometown was over 25°C (if I ignore 320 of them and misclassify a quarter of the 45 I did count).

Dana Nuccitelli is becoming a real asset for the skeptics, one that we certainly don’t want to lose.

As usual pal, you screwed up in the OP by APPLYING THE TOOL of statistic to the wrong problem... The issue here is NOT about "representative samples". The problem is the liars and cheats CHERRY PICKED the representative sample ----- to arrive at a conclusion TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED by their methodology of choosing that sample.. They chose from biased data ---- ON PURPOSE ---- because THEY WANTED to constuct a lie good enough fool folks like you.

They suceeded.. And now they are merely a trophy for folks like me who can point to their dishonesty and dismiss their filthy website and perversions of math and science for what they are...

I see your statistical expertise shines once more. ONE opinion is a representative sample of 3,147. ONE opinion invalidates that of several thousand others. ONE opinion is not cherry picking.

Got it.

Do you get that NO ONE was actually polled in the CN study. And that journal papers are a terrible place to go measure opinions?

 

[Abraham3]

Do you get that NO ONE was actually polled in the CN study. And that journal papers are a terrible place to go measure opinions?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Abstract
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.

********************************************

3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

********************************************

There's also the point that seems to have gotten lost once again, that Cook and Nuccitelli's survey was the FIFTH survey to find this level of support for AGW theory among climate scientists.