Right, here are some facts:
a) Firstly his name is spelt "Tol" not "Toll", secondly he doesn't deny that consensus exists, he just has issues with the percentage of consensus. That's fine by me. If he sees it as his job to act as a countermeasure to people who see climate change as a paycheque then I wish him well with this. Looking through his blog and he seems more concerned with fiscal growth than the environment, which makes sense since he's an economics professor.
b) is this a "facts don't care about your feelings" kind of thing? That's nice, aren't you tough?
c) No, facts are useless. Science interprets facts, it is not fact itself. Models are used as part of this interpretation.
OOoohhh a spelling error. Please see the post scriptum in my signature. Want some fries with that?
This is what Tol writes:
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
In other words: Debunked because JUNK SCIENCE.
Furthermore Tol writes:
Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.
The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.
About science, models and facts:
Science is a method. Facts are key.
When predictions from models show not to be true by facts, then the models need to be adjusted.
As for more drastic periods of cooling and warming before humans, who cares? This isn't about whether the planet can get hot or cold in general.
Who cares? I do.
It falsifies the claim that warming is a) unprecedented and b) man made.
The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.
All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway
P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them