Well, this has already been covered. Our friends at Pop Tech have done some good leg work in debunking Cook’s latest dive into sophistry and dishonesty. Andrew wrote a few of the scientists about Cook’s classification of their papers as endorsing the AGW meme. Some of the bold is Andrew’s some of it is mine.
Dr. Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
Dr. Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous …..
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called “skeptical works” including some of mine are included in their 97%.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.”
Dr. Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).
I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.” [boom!!!!!!]“Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”
Okay, all of that is something people with an operating synapse already knew. And, I’ll go one further and state something understood but unstated. In their never ending quest to attempt to create a false near universal agreement the warmists, regardless of their approach, regardless of the material covered or the questions asked, they will always announce a consensus agreement near or at the 97% mark. Always. Even if it means just making crap up when statistical acrobatics won’t suffice.
The most recent effort, by John Cook et al, demonstrates the same dishonesty as Lewandowsky and the rest of the amoral reprobates.
What’s funny is the warmists’ very basic lack of understanding what the arguments are and what they are not.
suyts space 
James,
Well I have to back you up 100% this time. With these revelations, looks like that brings it down to 96.8%.
( yes I know what you are going to say, I have read your previous posts on this)
So you have not understood WHAT they say; you have only counted them. Attaboy, good little warmist.
In for a penny and in for a pound. Once you devote yourself to a lie, you have to keep it up at all costs – including your self esteem.
Actually, that is false. What this does is call into question all the papers. So until you can obtain proof that Cook did not lie about every paper, you have no case.
Once a liar, always a liar.
Tony, I don’t think 3 examples would be all that one finds. Further, re-read Dr. Scafetta’s comments. Cook misrepresented the official IPCC position or maybe Cook doesn’t understand it. Which is why I included my last sentence.
Warmists like to pretend there are two positions to take on this issue. But, there are very many. There isn’t now, nor was there ever a “consensus” of anything in the climate. Not by the warmists and not by the skeptics. One couldn’t even find a consensus of opinion on this blog.
Substitute Warmists for Cook, and the sentence is still true. As has been demonstrated by our gadflies.
Another one bites the dust! At this rate, by the end of the year, all of Cooks gooses will have flown.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And one wonders where the clown is. Perhaps he needs to read the nastiness when the fraudsters shown up? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/dana-nuccitellis-twitter-war-with-richard-tol-over-that-97-consensus-paper/
Gee, I guess professional and ethics are foreign concept to the clowns. Even the so called professional ones.
By professional, you mean the equivalent of an ideological lady of the evening?
And another 3 bite the dust. At this rate Tony, if Authors were ice, the seas would really be rising faster than we could run!
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
How’s the crow taste there Tony?
Just reaffirms my decision to avoid Cook and his shenanigans like the plague.
But as with all things, once you cross the line between science and religion, you might as well go whole hog and lie about everything. As you point out, the truth does not matter. The false declarations are all that any ghoul will remember.
I wonder if the warmist used The Delphi Technique much? How else could they come up with their predetermined conclusions and misrepresent others so often?
Phil,
All the papers are up there, This is a job perfectly suited to you. I have no doubt you could “find” that 97% of them actually supported volcanoes being responsible for all current CO2, Cosmic rays , APO, MWP and LIA all in opposition to CO2 increases and Annette Funicello beach parties on Ellesmere Island in the 50’s.
Tony, I did not tell you to verify the papers. I would not expect you to since you did not make the claim (among other reasons). However when you make a claim, you are expected to back it up. Not everyone else, just you.
I have no doubt you think it is everyone else’s job to cover Cooks arse. So if that is indeed your desire, I suggest you get to it. otherwise, shut up. It is Nunya. But like always, you want to make it yours.
You are welcome to buy the lie. But unless you can prove otherwise, we can safely say that 97% of the papers referenced by Cook were lied about by cook. We have more evidence for that fact than you have wishes it is not so.
John Cook’s web site and actions are doing more to destroy the AGW agenda than anything sceptics could think to do. It makes me wonder if that might be his primary goal. What I have read from those on his team fall into that category also. I admit to having read about this at Lucia’s site and she had some of the comments they made while reviewing the papers.
Well said.