ZOne
Why,
other than my horrible typing of the word scientist? Of course some papers had more than one scientist submitting it. Of course one would need to total how many scientisis were among the 34% would agreed with AGW; how many scientists were part of the 66% who stated no opinion….and so on for the papers which disagreed and were uncertain. I don’t have that information except that I am certain that at least ONE scientist must have so submitted and for the % illustration it is probably sufficient to be close. Actually considering 66% ( I can’t remember exactly) had expressed no opinion, it is mathmatically probably that the % who agree with AGW would be far lower. I gave the pro AGW group a big benfeit in that way. Also you again are making specious comments without substance which is so ________.
In any mathmatical or statistical proof, one needs to state the metrics upon which the analysis is based. See Cook’s article for the example. It is entirely illustrative and factually to assume at least one scientist per paper as part of the overall illustration of the truth of the %’s. Geesh…it is so grade school basic unless I misundertand your problem. But really, WC you will always disagree with me no matter the facts.