I already owned up to misrepresenting the source and revised my claim. I'm not sure why you are still dwelling on that. However, you are equally guilty of the same offense. I incorrectly attributed the 97% consensus behind AGW to climate scientists, instead of peer reviewed journal articles on the issue. The latter is perhaps an even more significant statistic that should make everyone stop and reconsider. However, you also misrepresented the data to try and make it look like many researchers and articles are on the fence about it. Your extrapolation was not only not dispositive, it is founded solely on a misrepresentation of the data and is entirely inaccurate and misleading. Scientific journal articles are not opinion pieces, so they only express an opinion on the issue if they have data to provide supporting that position. Many papers are simply reporting the trend, not attempting to explain the causes. These would fall in the majority group of papers which make no claim.

When asked if a specific paper supports AGW, the scientists were not asked their opinions on the whole body of research behind the issue. You incorrectly interpreted my assertion. My statement that no position does not equal neutral position was to counter your interpretation of the data, not an attempt to attribute certain positions to these scientists.

I acknowledge your point and own up to originally misrepresenting the data. Forgive me for not giving much thought to that initial response. Certain posters have shown no desire to engage in productive discussion and simply troll, so I don't allot them much thought when responding. I do appreciate you calling me out on it and helping me clear up my claim while doing so in a civilized manner.

So, the meat of my point still stands regardless of how poorly I originally expressed it. There is a vast scientific consensus behind AGW, as shown by 97% of peer reviewed journal articles on the subject. The consensus is in the peer reviewed literature, with no specific study done to make a claim about the personal views of the scientists themselves.