As the bunnies may recall, Richard Tol was inconsolable that the Cook et al. survey only included ten of his 122 papers
Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral:
Eli was very hard on Poor Richard, but the Rabett is happy to learn that Richard really didn't think that any of his papers should be included. Over at Joanne Nova's he says he was only kidding
You omit the commonest error. Most papers on climate change do not explicitly test the hypothesis of human-made climate change. Only a few hundred papers do that. Most papers are about impacts of climate change, or climate policy, or a particular feature of atmospheric physics, or … Many of these paper do contain some words on human-made climate change in the abstract, and were thus counted as endorsements.Of course, that means that by picking up only a few of Mike Mann's papers, Cook et al. made a huge mistake. Might have been 98%
BTW that is Richard's Twitter icon. Hmm.