No hand puppets?
Really disappointing.

This is the article in question:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
It's called: BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Science 3 December 2004
Naomi Oreskes says:
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" "

We now know that this is incorrect. The Keywords was instead "global climate change" according to Naomi Oreskes as reported by Peiser.

"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."

So we divide it into 6 categories:
1] explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2] evaluation of impacts
3] mitigation proposals
4] methods
5] paleoclimate analysis
6] rejection of the consensus position

And the result is:
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."
With nil in the "rejection of the consensus position"

You will notice she divided the into "explicit endorsement" and got "explicit endorsement" and "implicit endorsement" as one and same category.

What's this implicit mean?

One definition is "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed"
Another definition is "being without doubt or reserve"
http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/implicit

Which definition is she using? The context could suggest she means "being without doubt or reserve"

But one could argue it's suppose to be "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed"

Though from a written text this would be very strange.

So, we will assume she is not crazy and not seeing more then the text itself [experiencing telepathic connection or facial expressions and emotions].

So, therefore the purpose of including "implicit" is that not only do article say this but they have no doubt about it- they have a really, really high confidence.

Another definition of implicit
1# suggested or to be understood though not plainly expressed; implied
2# necessarily or naturally involved though not plainly apparent or expressed; essentially a part or condition; inherent
3# without reservation or doubt; unquestioning; absolute
http://www.yourdictionary.com/implicit

I don't know with certainty. Which definition did you think she was using?

And doesn't the 6 categories turn into 7?
The added one being "taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change"

Maybe, women just have the inalienable right to change things as they go along.