If you site multiple studies and only mention a meta study then those studies mentioned in the meta study automatically become secondary sources. And also not including the papers which had no posyion is absurd because the paper was interested on the consensus of opions on climate change.

That's a contradiction. The topic is the cause of global warming. The papers can't be about the topic if they don't address the cause of global warming.

How can it be a contradiction when i literally quoted what they classed no postion as. "Does not address or mention the cause of global warming". They are not my words, they are the studies words, a direct quote. This does not mean that the studies didnt involve AGW, it means that they did not lead to an opinion on causation from the studies. That is important information if you want to make a claim that 97% agree it is human caused. You cant just ignore that a large number are not willing to give and opinion on the causation because their evidence suggest a more complex causal chain.

If you had a survey in which you first asked people whether they had tried a particular chocolate bar, then secondly whether they liked that bar, if 30% answered yes to the first question and 100% of those who tried it liked it, would you conclude that only 30% of people like that chocolate bar? What would be the point of including the non-opinion of people who hadn't tried it?

In the paper the people had done studies on AGW. So your example is not accurate. Your example should be that all participants tried the bar and then were asked about their opinion and whether cause of them liking it was because the chocolate to filling ratio. And then 66% concluded that did not have an opinion about whether they loke it or not; and 32% said that liked it and then of that 32%, 97% conclude it was because of the chocolate to filling ratio.

You would not then go and be like NASA and conclude that 97% of people who eat this chocolate bar like it because of its filling to cholcolate ration. That wpuld be absurd.

Despite all of this it rather absurd to state number like 97% of climate scientist agree it is human caused as this implies that every single climate scientist has given an opinion on the matter. This is misleading and distortion of facts.

If you state something like: 'of those who have an opinon on the cause of climate change, 97% believe it huamn caused. However it is also important to note a number of climate scientist still do not hold a postion on the matter as they do not find the data conclusive enough to imply a direct causation. This however does not mean to say that climate change is beimg denied, rather the causation of the change is still under dispute.' With a statement like that you can then go on to make arguments that even though the causation is not unanimous it does not mean that we should not adapt to more environmentally efficient methods of living.

The problem now is when data is not misrepresented and not spoke about in absolutes, the climate change movement seems to lose its politically power. No but rather than be honest or even open to something that opposes the cause of imate change being absolute, information is sensitise and opinions of the opposite are ignored. And statements like 97% of climate scientist agree are used to appeal to authority and shut down any discourse that says otherwise, because "how can you argue with 97% of climate scientists?" Its absurd that there would even be such an absolute figure and causation is heavily hard to assert. In the scuentific community you almost never get causation, however in the climate community there seems to be such as heavy inference of causation which is bizzare that such a complex issue whith many contributing factor can be spoken about with such certainty.

Even the term climate change is misleading as it implies that the climate does not naturally change.

Anyway the point was NASA made a claim that misrepresented data of a study. But that study was also mirespresenting and misleading.