Listen, what you may be good at is spitting out a bunch of words in a paragraph to try and get somewhere smart. However, you fail to get there, mainly because you're extrapolating an idea from Cook's data that simply isn't there. Like I mentioned before, 60+ percent of those articles Cook reviewed did not establish an opinion on global climate change. That does not mean that they are not certain about it, they decided to represent data and not come to a conclusion. Those articles Cook mentioned that came away with no opinion did so because they were simply just stating data, not arguing for or against, and did not want to lean either way. You are pulling something out that isn't there for the sake of your unfounded argument backed by skeptic websites. The data I have sourced showing no CO2 concentration above 300ppm comes from NASA and ice core data, a much more verifiable source than the skeptic website you referenced.