("Not a single one has given me a straight response which I could interpret as yes or no. But on balance left me with the impression "no" in each case.") +1 ;-)

They grew up. So will todays's "libertarians" (anarcho-capitalists).

I tried it. Well not quite abandoned but an unspoiled island with 3000 people. It was heaven for the first couple of years. By 7 years, groundhog day was making me look to the horizon for a passing ship. The sea, the surf and the blue skies, and the personal creativity are lovely, but after a while one needs some culture, generated by other people, with other ideas.

BTW, you do realise you're taking the guns with you? Wouldn't want you to leave them here.

Absolutely. You probably want to stay where you are, what with the wars and pestilence and everything. Don't feel the need to hurry back. You could send a postcard if you like. We'll be sure to read it. If you don't get a reply, well it probably got lost in the post or something.

Libertarians certainly do say that. But you may have confused them with Anarcho-capitalists.

Actually, RMS does qualify for most definitions of communist.
ESR on the other hand qualifies for most definitions of swivel-eyed right-wing libertarian loon.

Don't worry, we promise to leave you entirely alone on your island, just you libertarians, the telephone sanitizers, the hairdressers and advertising account executives.

Let me be the first to say the more libertarians that disappear off to this island, never to be seen again, the better.

That's not what most people want at all. Most people want roads, education, defense, a framework for business, etc. etc.

It's what Libertarians say they want. Though each wants only the human rights that happen to serve them individually.

The problem is that huge amounts of what we do infringes on others rights. There's very often a balance between rights of one person and rights of another. That's why an awful lot of those laws were created in the first place.

Google's more of an intensive care bed. Where they stick a probe into your every orifice.

That doesn't explain it at all. He's a liar. And I rather thought you'd go along with it.

Bingo.

I just did. And I conclude you don't realise when you are being lied to.

The paper divides research into 8 categories.

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
(3) Implicit endorsement
(4a) No position (4b) Uncertain
(5) Implicit rejection
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification

The paper itself, reasonably compares 1-3 against 5-7.

Your denialist blog compares 1 against 5-7.
i.e. it excludes "Explicit endorsement without qualification", but includes "Explicit rejection without quantification
and it excludes "Implicit endorsement" whilst including "Implicit rejection".

Are you prepared to accept that your blog link is a lie, or are you going to join in the lie?

Superwiz, my post to you was impolite and unfair, I apologise. I'm afraid I get so many blowhards here arguing with me, I mistook you for one, and clearly you're not. Likewise with the reading of the paper bit, I'd hadn't realised the person I was responding to in the thread had changed.

Also, I did err when I said "33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW". In my head I knew it was 66/33 the other way. It just didn't come out of my fingers that way.

Sure. That's why I introduced the term scholars, so I could include intelligent opinion all the way back to the ancient world. But then I brought it back to scientists, because even if there had been a pre-scientific-method consensus, it wouldn't be an equivalent to a consensus of scientists today.

Back to the topic in hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the paper covered the 66% that didn't express an opinion. But rather than repeat why here, I'll just point you to an earlier message.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43761331