In other words: I picked the numbers that most strongly weaken my argument, and still came out with a strong argument.
No mention of how many rejected, how many expressed uncertainty, and how many expressed that their paper was not about AGW. There's also the fact that 34.9% of RESPONDENTS claimed no position themselves on AGW, which is really hard to do if you're a climate scientist unless you're uncertain.
Your argument isn't "strong". It's based on a fundamental misconception. The "RESPONDENTS" didn't claim "no position themselves on AGW". They rated the position stated by their paper, not their own position. Your supposedly "strong arguments" are filled with simplistic "mistakes" like this.
You're trying to use a fallacy of equivocation: I said "bias" to indicate that one method of analysis favors a position more than another, and you're repeating "bias" to say "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome." Maybe learn not to be a deceptive, dishonest asshole?
Charming. It's fascinating that you baselessly accuse me of saying "lies and damned lies to support a pre-conceived outcome" when I never said that, then baselessly call me a deceptive, dishonest asshole. You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.
You completely ignored my rebuttal, and simply flung a new set of accusations.
Your rebuttle was to claim those papers weren't relevant. I responded by pointing out that Cooke excluded them because they didn't take a direct position, even though they were relevant. In other words: you said, "They weren't about that!", and I said, "Yes they were; they just didn't have a yes/no conclusion." Again: you're lying to try to dodge the argument, and you're trying to poison the well by making false claims about the context of the debate.
Once again, you're baselessly accusing me of lying. How charming. You've also failed once again to quote anything I actually said, while putting quotation marks around words I never said. Here's what I actually said:
Really? Are you absolutely sure that those peer-reviewed papers didn't just have "global climate change" or "global warming" as keywords? Because that's how C13 actually selected their sample.
You seem to be incorrectly saying that every single paper which includes those keywords is an attribution study. If you were correct, you'd be able to provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities". Is it even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies?
Try to use your approach to estimate the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution. Are abstracts which don't explicitly state that they agree with those theories actually saying "we don't know"? If that's really your position, you must also not think there's a scientific consensus about plate tectonics or evolution.
Note that I actually asked if it was even remotely possible that those 7,930 papers just weren't attribution studies. Perhaps you can't quote my actual words because you'd have to explain why you can't provide 7,930 abstract quotes saying "we don't know whether global warming is caused primarily by human activities".
Maybe if you spent a little less time complaining about women, you'd have more time to provide those 7,930 abstract quotes.