The fourth and final essential point deals with how the media and climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming scientific "consensus" of man-made global warming.
[...] "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.
If I understand correctly, the "concensus" that is being referred to here is the belief that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years has anthropogenic causes, not the belief that the warming has anything at all to do with human activity (just to clarify). And so, 45% of the papers either explicity or implicity agree that half+ of the warming is due to human activity, and 48% are neutral to this claim.
I only say this because the whole tone of the speech seems to be, 'there's no concensus on man-made global warming'. I don't think that the statistics quoted above support this well - they only demonstrate that not all believe that more than half of it is human related.