WorldCitizen
The math on it’s own is correct but irrelevant. As I stated before, the author’s rationelle for not using these studies were not because of their unwillingness to take a stance, but because of their having already agreed AGW is accepted science. Therefore, the studies would have been redundancies, as they were working on questions raised as a result of the acceptance of man made climate change…questions that spawned from that acceptance.
Or to quote the authors directly:
“Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no
position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather
than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007,
p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description
of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially
intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces
a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010);
the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial
among the publishing science community and the remaining
debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported
by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement
papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.”