It attacks a paper about the evolution of trends in consensus amongst climate scientists. At one point they say "most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming", which I thought was interesting. The paper in question says:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So they are saying that 97.1% of 33.6% (in other words, 32.6%) of nearly 12000 abstracts are prepared to blame humans for it. We can set these 3893 against the 84 rejecting human involvement, 7931 abstracts expressing no particular view, and 36 don't knows. Apparently some of the "supporters" don't like that label, but even if they are switched to the "anti" side, there is still a strong scientific consensus in support of an anthropogenic component to climate change.
Maybe all 3893 abstracts are wrong: it's possible. But not very likely, without invoking vague conspiracy theories and arguments from personal incredulity.