con·sen·sus      /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -sus·es.

1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

example - The consensus of the msm will be to ignore these findings.

the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis

Exactly.  This is what my rudimentary (technician for >25 yrs.) scientific education taught me:  testing continues and must have repeatability.  What is surprising, but probably ought not be so, is that only 48% of so-called scientists were neutral on the question of Anthropogenic GW.  Roy Spencer has done work on precipitation systems that should have all the AGW community and the MSM sitting up and questioning their core beliefs, but I don't beleive in Santa Claus anymore.  And as you and others have repeatedly pointed out, there are many others out there drilling holes in the AGW theory that the MSM loves to ignore.  James Hansen plays to their audience better.  When he finally self destructs, they will have a story about how the deniers were able to engineer his destruction through big money payoffs through the oil companies.  Cry me a river.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

99% (give or take) of Democrats buy the APGW crud.  Maybe 25% of Republicans do.  Yet, more than half of published scientists don't buy it...

This translates to just about every issue.  The Dems, and a few misguided Repubs, are operating in direct contradiction to the facts!

Politics 101 principle #7 - If most Democrats/Liberals agree with it, it's probably wrong.

"The easiest way to determine the veracity of a claim is to look at who is saying what about it. If Al Gore is promoting something, you know it's wrong! That's a heckuva lot easier than calculus - and just as accurate"

Sure I sort of agree with that. Get me on a bad/lazy day and I don't bother spending time with contrary views. But I like to keep the brain-challenges current...meaning I'll read opposing views, even nutty ones. There's a point where you give up, of course, if the source is consistently nutty (like Gore, or Hansen). But I generally operate on a know-thine-enemy basis.

I find some folks live in an intellectual vacuum and I think it's a bit cowardly to insulate oneself in such a way.

Nice photo of the sunspots. You know, those are caused by Global Warming.   ;-)

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

"If the issue is important enough to justify the time it takes, or if little is known about it, then the time spent on in-depth research is justifiable..."

Good policy. I like it. Wish more people would follow it.  

Your interpretation of this article relies on a serious logical error.  The important fact to take from this study is that of the studies which took an implicit or explicit position on global warming, 88% support the theory, and 12% do not.  You cannot draw any conclusions about the opinions of the scientists that authored neutral papers.  Your reading seems to assume that they must be neutral on the issue of global warming, therefore there is no consensus.  This is grossly unjustified.  The majority of scientific papers are neutral as to political issues, and even the most ardent proponent of a theory is likely to aslo publish neutral papers about methodology, raw data, etc.

What would be really interesting?  To know how many of the authors of neutral papers were also involved in the publication of position papers.  That might give you some insight into their opinions.