From Cooks work<quoted text>
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the
inanities of John Cook's paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has
written an extraordinary analysis of the data , which really has to be
seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper
involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see
where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest
rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans.
No other rating says how much humans contribute to global
warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much
humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused
most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this
requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+
examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is
smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7%(78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or
global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink
in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the
President of the United States, found more scientific publications
whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are
primarily to blame for it.
Read the whole thing.
"....We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.