It was the Cook study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...F866609C9F91F33E782.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Read the first sentence of the abstract. Step #1 was to exclude all articles that did not contain those two very specific terms in the abstract and both terms are extremely biased. So of course it's going to come back with a near 100% agreement because that's all he searched for.
?
Search terms that would also fall under that broad category.
"Conclusively proving that climate change is a statistical anomaly, rather than an actual effect."
"Modeling how climate change influences the life cycle of the sea anemone."
"Global warming and other fear mongering; measuring the psychological response to reporting in the media."
"Global warming conclusively linked to solar cycle."
All four of these titles would fall into the 480 articles not conclusively linking humans as a causation for global warming. That's rather clearly spelled out in their abstract. You again seem to be mistaking the earlier article's clear bias with the new one.
Why search these two terms? It's simple, scientific abstracts are designed to catch the attention of a reader. As such, they use trendy words. Put simply, your abstract sells yourself for future work. A trendier, or more hot-button issue can propel you into a huge grant and continued studies. The huge amount of studies created in a decade would take as long to individually catalog and analyze, with the vast majority yielding no direct results for your study. How then could you effectively parse through a mountain of work, knowing that trending topics will always be referenced in an abstract? Oh, that's right. You parse through the mountain by finding popular key words about your topic, which by nature hold no bias without context.
How about this, you define two other terms that should be used. Remember, the terms must magically have no bias as per your claims. The terms have to produce a significant amount of abstracts. In this particular case asking for just 75% of what was cited isn't an unreasonable qualifier. Remember that you also can't appreciably increase the number of abstracts. Each one has to be read, reviewed, and added to a listing by two volunteers (with any discrepancies being addressed by another volunteer). Now, you've also got to make sure that your team has any inherent biases accounted for. Let's start throwing out terms that cannot be used, and why:
1) Temperature - Too broad, as it covers everything from metallurgy to gemography
2) Precipitation - Again, too broad.
3) Warming - Too broad, and inherently biased based upon your criteria
4) Climate - This is interesting, but likely a problem as biological organisms generally have their locations, and thus preferred climate, information logged.
....
Do you get it yet? You're still using a god of the margins argument. You don't agree with their search terms, but you haven't proposed your own. Hell, you haven't even explained why the terms are inherently biased without any provided context. The reason Cook's study has validity is the fact that he didn't just ctrl-f for a result, he setup an abstract review to verify the conclusions. You haven't acknowledged the work provided to find reviewers that were both not motivated by profit, and whose inherent biases were negated by blind reviews and varying background. You're throwing out a huge amount of work because you don't like the search terms based on the bias
you assign them. Find your margins elsewhere, real science has already bitch-slapped your conclusion into last week. The only people still arguing the point either want to argue that the minutia somehow invalidates the conclusions because of the bias they inject, or they are arguing a dogma that cannot be wrong lest it shatter the carefully constructed illusion they have made for themselves.
Of course,
you're more than welcome to prove otherwise. As you're so fond to point out, do some science on your own if your hypothesis disagrees with the conclusions drawn. As yet you've only cited that you think there's a bias in the process, but not proven a damn thing is incorrect or biased.
Edit:
Too much work for you to do all of this? That's absolutely fine. I have a simpler logical question which you can answer. Maintaining output gasses is an absolute drain on cars. The reverse pressure, and required temperature of the catalytic converter drags down fuel efficiency substantially. The automotive industry has money, and they have a huge incentive to prove CO2 emissions aren't related too climate change. If they could do that, they could save billions by having catalytic converters removed from cars. Given financial incentives such as that, why aren't they commissioning reviews of abstract like this. For a less than $100,000 invested they stand to make billions. Car manufacturers aren't stupid, so why are they not disproving the vast conspiracy you are implying?
If it's acceptable to make any accusation, and thereby negate your opposition without any backing, your computer models are absolute crap because they don't accurately start by modeling the variations in gravitation experienced across the surface of the planet. Gravitation will influence the properties of the fluids in the atmosphere, thereby making any models which wants a resolution of a few hundred miles completely inaccurate without the millions of data points for varying gravitation accounted for.
Of course, I've done more to prove why your assumptions are accurate than you've felt necessary. You say there's an inherent bias, without any context. I provide a concrete variable that is unaccounted for. Tell me, can you science? Are you just going to continue arguing about your margins? Are you going to explain why words somehow have bias, when put into a demonstrable context they can mean the exact opposite of what you seem to imply? I'll not be holding my breath. Creationists never managed to do that. They never gave an answer as to why the science was broken. I'm just going to sit here for a few moments, and bask in the glorious stupidity of the Creation Museum. A "museum" where dinosaurs and cave men (not neanderthals, cave men) lived side-by-side like a rejected Flintstones cartoon.
Tell me how you're any different than that. No, demonstrate you are superior. Hiding behind one study here and another there is not proof. It's proof that you can win by modifying the rules on the fly. It's proof you're willing to drag out the discussion until you win because your opponents are exhausted simply negating the crazy you perpetuate. This is why the god of the margins arguments "work." You can never be wrong if you change the margins. It's a great tactic...for the adolescent and people whose dogmatic beliefs cannot be shattered, lest they have to square a broken dogma with reality.
Allow me to make this simple, by posing a hypothetical situation. You feel threatened, presumably by me because of this exchange. To prove your point, you search out the terms in all of my responses. You find one with the terms "kill," "you," and "in your sleep." You argue to the judge that because it is in one post, it's a blatant threat. He reviews the quote, and it reads: "There are few things which
kill me more than arguing against an irrational player. All
you get is a response that forces your hand, and requires giving up your objectivity to fighting them on their own level. It seems like the only way to escape that labor is
in your sleep, where at least their chatter can be silenced momentarily." The judge asks you if you are absolutely serious, and responds that context matters. The words, on their own, aren't biased. Arguing that they are means you're either a fool, or shouldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a soup spoon.
