Hi Tom, let's try to wrap this up.

Can you find 1 out of 4 geologists who have some doubts about whether or not the Earth is 6,000 years old? I don't think so. We are talking about comparing something where rational people still have real doubts, versus something where only the irrational have doubts.

Tom Brosz, "http://www.habitablezone.com/currentevents/messages/378036.html";

The 25% (1 out of 4) is the fraction that did not publish a position. Not those with "doubts".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#


Remember though, this is the report that the Telegraph story was attempting to discredit. Are you sure you feel comfortable citing it's results?

BTW, you never answered my question about remuneration for your advocacy here. I recieve nothing but praise and otherwise for my occasional forays into the breach here.