When an assertion is disputed, making four more assertions just as disputed does not add to your case. Let me just mention one of them. The “97% myth.” That came from a study by John Cook which has been the target of unfair criticism. One of those criticisms is that 12,000 papers were initially found in the automatic search and 2/3 of those papers were excluded as being irrelevant to the subject of global warming. But that is a necessary consequence of the limitations of the automatic search based only on keywords. Similarly, the study was criticized for counting only the papers that took a position on global warming. The criticism says that we don’t know what position the authors of those papers take. Again when forming a statistical sample, it is entirely appropriate to count only the ones that do take a position.
Public opinion research is done the same way. They attempt to poll a very small percentage of the total population. Among the people they attempted to contact, some did not answer their phone. Some answered, but declined to participate in the survey. The number of people excluded for these reasons are not counted in the final results, and that is OK.
But perhaps the most telling thing about the criticism of the Cook study is that in view of all the effort that went toward making the study objective and precise, not one of the critics have launched their own comparable study. After all these years during which the Cook study has been criticized, if the critics channeled their efforts into a comparable study that concluded that only 20% of scientists agree with global warming theory, they would have a better case than just throwing ineffective stones at the Cook study.
Much of the criticism is directed at the subsequent interpretation of the Cook study, given that the study itself had several levels of agreement. Subsequent interpretation of the Cook study is a separate issue, and criticism of those interpretations may be well-founded. But that should not reflect on the study itself.