This is a tired, erroneous argument which surprisingly still gets dragged out, and was commented on back in 2004 [0]:
"The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with “there is no consensus”. That’s wrong, and they usually retreat from it to “but consensus science is meaningless”, and/or “consensus has nothing to do with science”. The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn’t do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn’t prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media."
There are five seperate studies on the image, and most of them show no more than 85% give or take. If you have something that shows otherwise (aside from ad hominem) I'd love to see it.
An uploaded image to Wikipedia is a very weak source to assert an opinion not held by the scientific community (that there is no scientific consensus).
Also, I've been discussing the arguments all along, not sure what the reference to 'ad hominem' is about.
It mentions: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."
Maybe the American Association of Petroleum Geologists made that image you reference before changing their position. I don't know, it's completely out of context.
There is also a bit of echo chamber, the high numbers are for "Most Published" authors - and, in theory, it's a lot easier to publish something supporting Global Warming right now.
I'd agree- significant majority, but not a consensus right now.
Sorry, but there is a significant minority that in my mind prevents a consensus from existing. Majority is 84%, consensus is in the high 90s for me.
Take away vocal proponents, and you can clearly see that there is still room for debate here.