Claim: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions: (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: As described above, a small minority of scientists do disagree with the consensus: see list of scientists opposing global warming consensus.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan accept the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot."

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: less than 14% of the observed global warming.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate change denialism is the prime example, where a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The group claims that many scientists choose to endorse prevailing theories of global warming to protect their research funding by the government, a view that is held by French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux, and was the subject of the book "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media" by Patrick Michaels.