Summary: The “news article” you linked to, is Biased.
The “news article” you pointed me to, was not what I asked for. However, the general idea “on what needs to be done”, is in this “news article” and will provide ideas for future peer reviewed “researched papers” in nailing down the “consensus” issue.
Problems with this "news article" are, but not limited to:
Only 3146 as stated in the “news article” completed the survey. Adding the 650 scientists to this total (yes there is the possibility of doubling up). Then the total percentage of scientists (note I am saying scientists) saying “agree on global warming is 81% (3146*100/3896). Therefore your statement “100% Climate Scientists” is still wrong.
The percentage total of the various groups (geophysics, geochemistry, etc) only adds to 50%. What happened to the other 50%?
The survey was only sent out to “mainly Earth Scientists”, what about meteorologists, climate statisticians, physicists and mathematicians. This is first major bias of the “news article”.
The analysis states that 90% of the survey respondents were Americans. What about other institutions around the world and was the questionnaire written in just English or did it have the option for other languages. This is the second major bias of the “news article”
The “news article” places emphasis on two primary questions the first is “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? This is a leading question (or unremarkable one) because relative to the Little Ice age (1700s and to the early 1800s) the Earth has been warming and the “scientists” who were surveyed would know that the temperature has been rising to present day levels. I am surprised that it was not 99.99% instead of 90% as stated in the “news article”. This is the third major bias of the “news article”.
The second primary question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The first critical part of this question is; what is meant by human activities? Is it deforestation, carbon emissions of all forms or some other type? How did the respondents interpret “human activity” and what was their understanding of human activities? The second critical part of the question is, what is meant by significant contributing factor? What is its metric and what guidance, instructions or information was supplied for the respondents to gauge how significant the various human activities are to the alleged global warming crisis as compared to the natural contributions to global climate. This is the fourth major bias of the “news article”.
I want to see research papers that have been conducted using “double blind studies”, why? Because of the constant, he said, she said, they said, we said. In addition to statements like, you are being paid by, an individual, corporation or even government body so you must be beholding to your masters, so therefore you must be corrupt or biased.
Until “double blinded studies" are carried I will remain highly skeptical of any article or even peer reviewed articles. One last point, did I mention that this is just an outline of what can and probably will be done (rebuttal, critique or constructive criticism) of the real submitted paper when it does appear.
Edit: Paragraph separated in list