Alright, last one for me then I'm exiting the echo chamber. The WUWT link criticizing the 97% consensus has also fallen apart. Lomborg and Shaviv falsely claimed to be included in the "support" category, which they were not. Tol says he was categorized correctly, he just disagrees with his own words, and even has "little doubt" that the 97% figure is correct. There was also a "self-rating" survey, in which the authors assigned their own full works to a rating on a similar (but not identical) scale, that came up with a 97.2% consensus (the Cook et al. abstract-only study was 97.1%). The self-rating survey got 2142 responses from more than 8500 scientists, including the ones above, invited to respond. All of the authors of the papers (over 12K) whose abstracts mentioned climate change were invited to respond. So while the methods don't lead to absoluteness, of course, they lead to the same general result that Oreskes, Doran & Zimmerman, Anderegg et al., Cook, and the climate study authors themselves, using different methodologies, all come to. However, speaking of sketched out methodology, WUWT (Anthony Watts principally, with lots of input from people like Steven Goddard -- figured out who he is yet???) ran not only with the errors above, but also with Monckton's famously ludicrous math that came up with 0.3% consensus. He divided every paper searched (12K) by the number of abstracts that quantified anthropogenic warming in Cook et al's paper (which he also reduces to about 40, through equally painful anti-logic). Interestingly, using that methodology, only 0.08% of the papers denied AGW. But of course that last number is inaccurate also, even though it's much closer to reality. Monckton is likely not that dumb, although I suppose it's possible. So at some point you have to rely on your judgment and hitch your wagon to a particular horse. Even just based on this single thread, why one would choose WUWT and that crowd, minus some sort of rigid agenda of course, over the alternative is baffling. I sincerely hope that de facto "Steven Goddards" here are just idealogues, and I actually suspect that is true. That's at least a plausible explanation.