No offense taken, and I can tell you are not just parroting political blogs which is refreshing. I do see your point, but as I will explain later, for a meta-study I think they did the best that they possibly could have. It says that only .07% of the abstracts reject AGW. That is a <i>huge</i> signal. This study shows that climate change isn&#x27;t controversial within science journals as it is made out to be in the news media, which is the <i>only</i> reason people think it is controversial. If its not controversial among scientists then it must fit within the scientific consensus. Also, There is a problem with fixing the study in the way you mention. If they categorize scientists as &quot;hard&quot; or &quot;soft&quot; then the study becomes prone to be rejected during peer-review because at that point its results would hinge on their ability to make that distinction without bias.