Published by ClimateMonitor #43923, March 8, 2017 (See also the Gianluca's new comment with references).
versione italiana
On March 6, 2017 Gianluca, a reader of ClimateMonitor.it, in replying to a comment by giuliog02, quotes his phrase:
"I don't think it does change at scholar's level, all of them beeing convinced it is AGW"
and writes:
I would like to highlight such a "mantra", serially repeated by all the belivers in the mainstream narrative:

THE TOTAL CONSENSUS ON AGW


My comment starts from the Antonello Pasini's quote, some comments before the mine one, that linked the paper at "Climalteranti.it" (an italian site of "belivers" nbt (note by the translator)).
I reproduce here my comments appeared at Climalteranti.it in the aim to understand if in your opinion I did write only a large amount of trash.

  • I examined the papers referenced in the paper unanimously considered the basis of the 97% "rocky" consensus of the scientific world: CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS BY COOK ET AL., 2016. (Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024, nbt).

    After extracting (selecting) all people who presented some consensus for the anthropic contribution to the Global Warming (GW), hereafter called pro-AGW, I can derive (admittedly, in a very crude way) what follows:

    So I can obtain, after addition:
    497+2580+906+245+383+411+10188+1821+1227+3261+633= 22,152 pro-AGW
    vs
    1069+10257+1372+2677+986+1000+29286+7197+8000+3748+1868= 67,460 selected
    and so: 22,152/67,460= 32.84%.

    In summary, I cannot see any unanimous CONSENSUS.

    Not completely satisfied by the above analysis I further checked how many scholars have as main refererence field the Climate Science, among all those who replied to the polls, quoting themselves as pro-AGW, and derived the following:

    Again, we can obtain:
    63+75+194+245+178+411+746+115+555+123+296= 3001

    So, it appears that our planet's future depends on the opinions of 3,001 climatologists: no doubt that such a number is interesting (if the results does not depend on double, triple or more checking, given that the names could easily derive from the same lists and in the meanwhile -10 years- selected people did not change field of interest or become skeptic or also die).

    In any case, are we sure that the above 3,000 individuals are representative of the thought of all the worldwide climatologists whose number is, based on the Cook's paper, about 30,000 (i.e. 10%)?

    The CONSENSUS becomes more and more a NONSENSUS at my AVVISUS (a joke "latin" version for "in my opinion", nbt).

    Gianluca adds new information and corrections in a comment at http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=43923:
    I would like to add, solicited by the comments of some readers, that I reconsidered with more attention the papers and introduced some correction, also including the results of Gallup 1991:

    Again adding:
    264+497+2580+903+245+383+410+10188+1329+1227+3261+641= 21,928 pro-AGW
    vs
    400+1069+10257+1372+2677+986+998+29286+7197+8000+3748+1868= 67,858 selected
    so, 21,928/67,858=32.31%

    If I do account for only the pro-AGW climatologists:

    and, adding all:
    65+46+75+194+245+178+410+746+115+554+123+38= 2,789 pro-AGW climatologists that, compared to the above 30,000 experts selected by Cook, rappresent about the 9.29%

    Percent of pro-AGW people appears to be slightly less than the initial calculation, but probably my mistakes will be present in some amount, so I'm confident with the kind collaboration of the readers.

    References

    1. ANDEREGG et al. 2010: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf and http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/07/1003187107.DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT
    2. BRAY 2010: https://www.academia.edu/3077313/The_Scientific_Consensus_of_Climate_Change_Revisited
    3. BRAY and VON STORCH 2007: http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/GKSS_2007_11.pdf (page B30 - fig.30)
    4. CARLTON et al. 2015: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/pdf (pag.3), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
    5. COOK et al. 2013:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf (pag.4 - tab.3), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Environ. Res. Lett. 8(2013)
    6. COOK et al. 2016:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf (pag. 3 e 4 - tab.1), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
    7. DORAN and ZIMMERMANN 2009: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf (pages 22-23)
    8. FARNSWORTH and LICHTER 2012: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change
    9. PEW RESEARCH CENTER 2015:http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf (pag.13)
    10. ROSENBERG et al. 2010: http://bush.tamu.edu/istpp/scholarship/journals/ClimateScientistsPerspectives_ClimaticChange.pdf (page 4 - tab.2)
    11. STENHOUSE et al. 2014:http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (pages 1031 and 1034 – tab.1) (from a new analysis of the table I noted a mistake in registering the number of pro-AGW scientists: not 1821, but 1329)
    12. VERHEGGEN et al. 2014: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es501998e (page 8966)
    Please note (nbt): the three papers at IOPSCIENCE (Carlton 2015, Cook 2013 and Cook 2016) cannot be accessed from the given link. Use the link to the DOI code. Bray 2010 requires an access to Academia.edu.