Evidence - sourced evidence - please. Anything less = a concession.Cook's 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists' papers according to the scientists that published them.
I've seen how the 97% was derived and find it to be quite proper. In fact, the implication that 3% of active climate researchers reject the major findings inre GW is misleading. They generally only quibble with a portion of it. True rejection of it among those who know the subject best is vanishingly rare. It's primarily rejected by political ideologues from other fields.