The claim that "97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists" is a lie.

As I stated before, and as you mentioned the primary source of this claim is cited from "Cook et al. (2013).It is from "Cook et al. (2013) that we get the claim, and quoting from the Abstract, "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. " http://iopscience.iop.org...The first issue with “Cook et al. (2013) is“explicit endorsement with quantification” vs “explicit endorsement without quantification” Within the Abstract section 2. Methodology, of “Cook et al. (2013), we can observe the paper broken down as follows:(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification.(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification(3) Implicit endorsement(4a) No position(4b) Uncertain(5) Implicit rejection(6) Explicit rejection without quantification(7) Explicit rejection with quantification“explicit endorsement with quantification” is representative of a paper that states that: "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming"—primary cause in usage meaning more than 50 percent. This is the only category anyone claiming "X number of papers endorse Man Made Climate Change." should reference, because this is the only category where that statement is true. “explicit endorsement without quantification” are papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether .001 percent or 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. The crux of "explicit endorsement without quantification" is that man has contributed SOME amount.Then there is "Implicit endorsement", which "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause".The important distinction here is that neither the “explicit endorsement without quantification” or the "Implicit endorsement" make the claim that Human beings are the primary cause. However the theory of AGW([Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming) is that human being ARE the PRIMARY cause.However within his results he breaks down the summery of abstracts with AGW([Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming) position (%) as follows:Endorse AGW 97.1%Reject AGW 1.9%Uncertain on AGW 1.0%In formulating his result of "Endorse AGW", Cook lumps together "Implicit endorsement" & “explicit endorsement without quantification” with “explicit endorsement with quantification”. Thus lumping together papers which suggest that human contribute some portion, with those stating that we are the primary cause.Further examination of Cooks data http://iopscience.iop.org... shows the truth of the matter: By his count, the number of articles classified into each category was:Level 1 = 64Level 2 = 922Level 3 = 2910Level 4 = 7970Level 5 = 54Level 6 = 15Level 7 = 9The 97% figure was the sum of levels 1-3. Assuming the count is correct—that 97% breaks down as:Level 1: 1.6%Level 2: 23%Level 3: 72%This shows only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.Only Level 1 corresponds to "the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." (emphasis mine) Hence when John Cook attributed that view to 97% on the basis of his Cook et. al. (2013) he was misrepresenting 1.6% as 97%. Adding up his categories 5-7, the levels of rejecting of AGW, we find that more papers explicitly or implicitly rejected the claim that human action was responsible for half or more of warming than accepted it. According to Cook's own data. So no, Cook et. al. did not find that "over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."------------------------------------------------------Not only does Cook's own data not prove the case, but much of cook's data is improperly categorized. As Popular Technology investigated, http://www.populartechnology.net...Quoted from their interviews:"Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"Is this an accurate representation of your paper?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 because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.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.They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006.""