Can we please end the 97%-consensus-discussion? Asap?
Q1 Are you a scientist? | Yes/No
Q2 Is your work related to | climate variability / anthropogenic climate change / anthropogenic global warming / climate science / climate impacts / not applicable [You may mark more than one]
Q3 Is your work related to the scope of | IPCC WG1 / IPCC WG2 / IPCC WG3 / not applicable [You may mark more than one]
Q4 Are you willing to name your employee/institution | yes/no
Q5 If you answered Q4 with yes, type your employee/institution here | ………
Q6 How probable is, in your opinion, a dangerous impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced climate change somewhere sometime in the future or already nowadays | 0…10% / 10…20% / 20…30% / 30…40% / 40…50% / 50…60% / 60…70%/ 70…80% / 80…90% / 90…100% / not applicable, don’t know
Q7 This is based on | your own work / informations from the scientific publications of peers / NGO publications / the media / other / not applicable
Thank you.
OK, let’s extend this.
Bonus Q1 Which proportion of the world’s population is going to be affected by dangerous effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced climate change | 0…10% / 10…20% / 20…30% / 30…40% / 40…50% / 50…60% / 60…70% / 70…80% / 80…90% / 90…100% / not applicable, don’t know
Bonus Q2 This is based on | your own work / informations from the scientific publications of peers / NGO publications / the media / other / not applicable
Bonus Q3 Do your personal ethics imply that something should be done about this | yes/no
Bonus Q4 How much effort do you invest to minimize your personal contribution to anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced climate change | none at all / a bit / quite a lot / I try to minimize my greenhouse gas footprint in everything I do
Did I miss something?
14ter Stock 
How is this related to the 97% consensus? The central questions of the consensus papers are basis science questions.
The central question of this survey, Q6, crucially depends on how much we will do to solve the problems, further technological, economic and historical developments. That is no longer a climate science question. Maybe people in IPCC WG2 / IPCC WG3 will see it differently, but I would see it as a political question, especially given the undefined term “dangerous”.
Yes 97 had nothing to do with dangerous. But consensus and anti-consensus writers often imply or explicitly state that the 97% also endorse/are meant to endorse the dangerous impacts.