The global warming industry community has used a report data compiled by the ISI Web of Science database beginning in 1993 to push that a "consensus" of scientists agreed with the theory that global warming is caused by man. Many on the left used this as indisputable evidence that if scientists agreed, it must be fact.

That said, they should have no problems believing this data as well being as it the results were arrived at using the exact same procedures:

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 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."

Read the entire piece, it is eye opening to say the least.

Given that myriad liberal sites used the data compiled by Naomi Oreskes in the original report to push their cause, shouldn't this data now be shown that their is no consensus? It should of course, but will not because it would prove them wrong and no one can change the collective minds of the Cult of Gaia. This is their religion and to question it, even with facts, will never change their minds.

Here you have two reports that were compiled using the exact same methods and they come to two different conclusions, the one showing no "consensus" being the most recent. The global warmingists have three options: retract their original citation of the first report by Oreskes, accept the report put forth Dr. Schulte or slam Dr. Schulte as a hack and fraud and belittle his work as meaningless. My guess is the former will never happen and the latter will be the plan of attack against the heathen heretic Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte. Stand by doc, you are about to experience serious incoming from an unholy army of rampaging greens and other assorted environmental wackos.