Oh my! Seven no's, I guess you win, since that beats an actual argument.

A "no position" is indeed just that. Cook treats it as if it does not exist and dismisses it, when in fact it constitutes nearly two thirds of the actual scientific concensus. I did not claim it represents dissent, just that it represents an unwillingness or inappropriateness towards taking any position, indicating those authors are following the science, which is clearly far from settled. The Cook study's main value is that it exposes that about a third of climate scientists have abandoned objectivity on the side of AGW. You will notice very few on the other side have done that according to Cook's data. I could criticize Cook for other major failures in his poor handling of self ratings as well as failure to explicitly control for bias of raters, and more, but what is the point when he threw out two thirds of the data and drew his conclusions from only that which suited his predrawn purposes. What a hack.