Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change and its communication have become a controversial research subject in recent years. This paper utilized a reference list from a climate skeptic report and a previously published quantitative method of consensus research to revisit the theoretical and methodological questions. Beyond rating the abstracts according to their position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), this study classified the strategic in-text functions of the references. Results not only showed the biased character of the literature set, but also revealed a remarkable AGW endorsement level among journal articles that took a position concerning AGW. However, this paper does not argue for modified consensus numbers, but instead emphasizes the role of ‘no position’ abstracts and the role of rhetoric. Our quantitative results provided evidence that abstract rating is a suboptimal way to measure consensus. Rhetoric is far more important than it appears at first glance. It is important at the level of scientists, who prefer neutral language, and at the level of readers such as report editors, who encounter and re-interpret the texts. Hence, disagreement appears to stem from the disparate understanding and rhetorically supported interpretation of the research results. Neutral abstracts and papers seem to provide more room for interpretation.

量化关于人为气候变化及其交流的共识已成为近年来有争议的研究课题。本文利用了一份气候怀疑报告中的参考清单和先前发表的定量共识研究方法，以重新审视理论和方法论问题。除了根据摘要在人为全球变暖（AGW）上的位置来对摘要进行评级外，本研究还对参考文献的战略文本功能进行了分类。结果不仅显示了文献集的偏见性，而且还揭示了在与AGW有关的期刊文章中AGW的认可度。但是，本文不主张修改共识数字，而是强调“无位置”摘要的作用和修辞作用。我们的定量结果提供了证据，表明抽象评分是衡量共识的次佳方法。修辞比乍一看显得重要得多。对于喜欢中性语言的科学家和对于遇到并重新解释文本的读者（例如报告编辑）来说，这一点很重要。因此，分歧似乎源于对研究结果的不同理解和用言辞支持的解释。中性的摘要和论文似乎为解释提供了更多空间。因此，分歧似乎源于对研究结果的不同理解和用言辞支持的解释。中性的摘要和论文似乎为解释提供了更多空间。因此，分歧似乎源于对研究结果的不同理解和用言辞支持的解释。中性的摘要和论文似乎为解释提供了更多空间。