AGW ... even merely Catastrophic Climate Change (hot OR cold), if you wish ...
is a main socio-political battlefront, and must not be trivialized.
This “study” finds that Sceptics are birds of a feather. Whoop-de-doo!
As if Alarmists are not.
The point is NOT, who published your book ... the point must be,
Is Your Book True?
Explain why the hockey-stick chart is not a fraud !
Explain how the surface of the earth today measures cooler than it was 10 years ago !
Explain why anyone should believe a set of computer models
... whose projections are clearly out of line with observations ...
rather than act on the observations !
Cogitator will disagree with 1 and 3 and agree with me on #2. For number 1, the hockey stick is a fraud, see my web page.
For number 2, the El Nino 10 years ago caused a lot of global warming and the La Nina is causing a fair amount of global cooling.
For number 3, again my web page explains why models are oversimplified, but even if they weren't, they can't predict El Nino and the current La Nina.
The reason I respond with a disagreement with you on #2 is that hanging your hat on solar cooling or La Nina is a bad argument because, sure as the sun rises, there will be more El Ninos and warmth and solar variations will go the other way as well. The main reason to argue against cog's alarmism is that the catastrophic warming he warns about is a low probability event. We disagree on how low, he might say a few percent, I say zero for many reasons such as inertia of the ice on Greenland, lack of demonstrable positive feedbacks sufficient to "tip" the climate, etc