Ethon came flying in the window with a missive from John Cook. Based on the cross-tabs from the prequel survey, the bunny wondered what the distribution of No Position ratings from the abstracts would be in Cook et al based on the responses of the authors who responded to the Email survey.
Among papers whose abstracts were rated "no position", according to self-ratings (which is a proxy for the endorsement level of the full paper):228 endorsed AGW213 had no position11 rejected AGWIn other words, most of the climate papers with "no position" abstracts go on to endorse AGW in the full paper. We explicitly mention this in the paper. So whenever the deniers are saying "66% of climate papers have no position on AGW", they're simply wrong and either haven't read the paper or are misrepresenting the paper.