He’s saying 1) there’s no consensus, and 2) there’s no legitimate consensus. But his evidence in support of the latter undermines the former. There is a consensus, it’s clearly visible in the published climate literature. If you want to argue that institutional pressure and anti-orthodoxy witch hunts are the reason for the consensus, fine, but first you need to acknowledge that there’s a solid consensus in expert opinion as expressed in published literature. Otherwise, you’re offering an explanation of a phenomenon you don’t think we’re observing.
Here is the petition’s website, where you or I or anyone can find a form to mail in to add our illustrious names to the petition.
Your credulity dial is all over the place. On the one hand, published research that provides information about methods and limits its search to articles published in climate science journals is “disingenuous” and a “sham”, but an anonymous petition that anyone can fill out, collated by a cooky little medical nonprofit, which treats doctors, electrical engineers, and mathematicians as experts, is dispositive. Why do you trust the OISM petition more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?
And even if we trust the OISM, why do we treat it as particularly strong evidence against a consensus? The pool of “experts” in the fields they include would be more than 10.6 million, so 30k is .3%, and we still seem to be left with a 99.7% consensus.
Because denying well attested conclusions is associated with bad science. Believing things for bad reasons is bad science. And not giving someone a promotion or tenure or a book deal because they’re a bad scientist is not bullying.
I don’t mean to say that challenging the orthodoxy is always bad science, but it is usually bad science, and taken by itself it is bayesian evidence of being a bad scientist.
Ooo, this has the makings of a testable prediction: how long do you think it will take to get disappeared? What search terms should we test, and when, to see? And when we find that it’s still there, what belief of yours will change?
This contradicts your earlier claims that, “less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions.” Happy to move on if you retract that claim.