text: Steve my point is that the Cook et al. study is hopelessly confused as well as being largely irrelevant to the complex questions that are raised by the idea of (human-caused) climate change. As to being confused, in one place the paper claims to be exploring the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW and yet the headline conclusion is based on rating abstracts according to whether humans are causing global warming. These are two entirely different judgements . The irrelevance is because none of the most contentious policy responses to climate change are resolved *even if* we accept that 97.1% of climate scientists believe that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (which of course is not what the study has shown). And more broadly, the sprawling scientific knowledge about climate and its changes cannot helpfully be reduced to a single consensus statement, however carefully worded. The various studies such as Cook et al that try to enumerate the climate change consensus pretend it can and that is why I find them unhelpful and, in the sprit of this blog, I would suggest too that they are not helpful for our fellow citizens.