It rather does matter where that data came from. As given that the figures and calculation originally come from the paper itself, it cannot be so that they ignored it, nor that they didn't include it in calculations.
My point was that regardless of which link I saw those numbers from, they were true. But in retrospect, had I gotten them from the source instead of the The Guardian link, I suppose it could have been presented in such a way as to make clear why they only used 4000-plus papers when arriving at that 97%. So you are right, it does matter which link I saw the data on.
And apparently you did so without even looking at the paper you criticise.
While technically correct, that line overlooks the fact that I did check out the The Guardian links. Which I thought it was clear that I did check out at least one of TFS links, but I apologize if I had not made that clear. At any rate, I certainly wasn't basing this on things coming out of my ass. Likewise, someone with an anti-AGW agenda to push would also not be basing such a claim on things coming out of their ass. They have the The Guardian article to point to, which I at least did not see them include an explanation as to why only 4,000 of the 12,000 total papers were used to arrive at 97%.
That's why I was condescending. Because what you wrote deserved it.
Does The Guardian have a similar reputation to Fox News? If so, I was unaware, but instead of being condescending, perhaps it would be more beneficial to point out that a particular news source is not very reliable. If not, then perhaps your beef should be with The Guardian, not the person who based their information on a The Guardian article.
Of course, if you thought that I was trying to push an anti-AGW agenda, then I suppose I don't blame you for being condescending towards me. But it wasn't clear to me that that was the reason, nor is it clear now if it was. Regardless, the only thing a condescending attitude is going to do is drive someone on the fence to instantly oppose you.