Richard Tol Fights back – with an article in the Guardian showing that Cook's 97% consensus is actually 'nonsensus'

Jim Hunt says:
Now you’ve gone and wasted another few screenfuls of purple prose.
No, that was you and your doggie. I posted verifiable facts. Lots of them. But you have never discussed the links I posted, not once. You posted your opinions and baseless assertions. There’s a difference. My links can be verified — whereas you only emit opinions, and appeals to corrupt authorities.
Next, you ask:
Have you ever studied physics? A one word answer will suffice.
Yes.
And in that one answer, I have replied to more questions than you ever have, when I’ve asked questions. You are terrified of getting into a discussion that is limited to empirical, measurable facts — and everyone here can see it in your irrelevant responses. Blowing smoke isn’t answering questions.
Next you say:
Apparently you can’t understand English as well as being unable to pronounce it properly.
You have never heard me speak, so chalk that up as just one more baseless assertion.
Next:
Let me quote the IPCC again for you:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.
Which says exactly nothing. I’ve really tried to educate you, but your mind is closed tighter than a submarine hatch: the planet has been warming since the LIA. That is unequivocal. The warming is natural, unless you are claiming that the first two step changes are natural, but the third one isn’t. No rational person would make that preposterous assertion.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out: there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence quantifying the degree of global warming that can be attributed specifically to human activity. The climate Null Hypothesis shows that human emissions do not make any measurable difference in global T. But so far, that hasn’t sunk in. I seriously doubt that at this point you are capable of understanding the Null Hypothesis.
Next, Hunt says:
@RACookPE1978 – Can I take it that you’re not in fact just dbstealey in disguise?
Desperate, aren’t you? No, RACook and I have never met, except in these threads. But let me note once again that neither Hunt/Snow White, or his pooch, ever answered RACook’s straightforward questions. As always, they obfuscate, and make ad-hom attacks, and make baseless assertions, and appeal to corrupt authorities, and to always wrong computer models, and they editorialize. But answer questions? Never. They are wary of the trap of getting into a discusion with skeptics regarding verifiable, measurable empirical evidence. Because they have nothing that would stand up to even mild scrutiny.
Next, Hunt/White says:
If you’re referring to my alter ego’s blog, then I’m instructed to inform you…
What?? Does he/she have any idea how psychotic that sounds? Leon Festinger would have had a field day with that guy/gal. Earth to Hunt: Mrs Keech’s flying saucer is due any day now. Have patience, it will take you to a better place.
Next, RACook asks:
What is the specific evidence for man’s release of CO2 affecting the climate the past 70 years?
I have been asking essentially the same question repeatedly: post scientific evidence — based on hard data — that quantifies the global temperature rise putatively caused by human CO2 emissions. Make sure it is evidence, and not pal-reviewed assertions, or always-wrong computer model predictions. ‘Evidence’ means testable, measurable raw data. If Snow White can post such evidence, she will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. Because there is no such data. Baseless assertiona are all the alarmist crowd has.
Finally, RACook asks Hunt:
Go ahead and “explain” that albedo thing to me for the edge of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-September for each hour of the day on each day of the month, would you please? I’m interested in what function you chose to use for Air Mass as a function of solar elevation angle, what clarity index you chose for the clear sky, what percent clear-sky/cloudy-sky you chose (and why), and what the correction factor to the measured open water albedo as a function of solar elevation angle under wind speeds below 10 knots you believe is correct. Most important, what percent transference do you use for indirect (diffuse) sunlight in September and August, and what paper did you use as a reference? …what function do you prefer to determine the latitude of the edge of sea ice as a function of day-of-year?
That is amusing, because Snow White or Hunt — I forget which — stated upthread that positive albedo feedback is “a fact”. But of course, such a simple-minded question can’t be a ‘fact’ because as RACook makes clear, there is far more to albedo than Hunt’s simpleton question.
I almost never make predictions. But here’s an exception: I predict that neither Hunt nor his canine pal will answer a series of questions based on testable, measurable data. “Hard data”, as the dog made the mistake of suggesting. Because the alarmist clique always avoids fact-based answers, which can be verified or deconstructed. With them, it’s assertions all the way.
But if I’m wrong, great! I have my questions all ready.

Alan Robertson,
The way I took it, RACook was responding to Hunt. It was a little confusing, but from your other comments, it’s clear that you and Mr Cook are on the same page.
Regarding the latest Hunt nonsense about extreme weather, see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here [I have more]. Extreme weather events are all declining — debunking yet another series of failed alarmist predictions.
Hunt and the dog refuse to discuss any real world observations like that. They truly are part of a religious movement, so they can’t think straight. But they know enough to avoid any discussion where they would have to answer some questions, and explain their answers using hard data.
It’s always like this. The alarmist crowd lost the scientific argument a long time ago, and they lost it decisively. So now they use off-topic ridicule, like Fido does, or like Hunt/Snow White, they argue endlessly without addressing any facts, or answering any questions.
That’s why none of them will agree to any fair, moderated debates any more. They lost every past debate for the same reasons — and the YouTube videos of those debates are still available. I have at least a half dozen alarmist/skeptic debates saved. The alarmists like Mann, Schmidt and others got slaughtered in every one of them. So now they hide out, and refuse to debate the science.
At this point all they have left is propaganda. There is zero science on the part of the alarmist crowd — as we see here in the comments by Hunt and doggie.