http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
As Ive said before the existence of the IPCC originally was to develope a socioeconomic strategum to respond to the possibility of a warmer planet. At some point immediately thereafter the IPCC introduced a null hypothesis - "climate change is anthropogenic" that it presupposes and guides its scientific research selection and analysis.
Its easy to see how politics can control science by creating a perfect storm for built in bias within a promoted consensus.