I believe the accurate statement is: In a retrospective study by a pro-global warming group of all of the articles published in a selection of peer reviewed journals during a given interval, the committee decided, without asking the authors of the articles in any way, to 'grade' 97% of the publications as being 'pro global warming'.

This is an entirely different statement.

I have read of individual scientists, whose articles were amongst the ones in the study, indicate that they thought their article was (a) global warming neutral, or (b) anti-global warming. (There were only 2 or 3 scientists making these comments.)

Jan

Yes - this one is harder to prove. Maybe they learned their lesson about stats being picked apart. It has been coming to light recently that scientists who are brave enough to call BS are being silenced, and their research is being suppressed.

Appreciated! I can see the humor in that - I love making fun of so-called studies in which the stats aren't done right. My recent favorite is a "study" in the UK showing that single, childless men are more lonely and less fulfilled than their married, child-rearing counterparts. The total sample was 105 people, not all of whom were men!

Joking aside, that was also my first thought. Why did they only pick households (in one US county no less) where someone had died? As the links above show, the answer is obvious. Remember, gun control isn't about guns - it's about control.