...
Yes, I did say the scientific community as a whole that you for some reason believe you're qualified to speak against. Now apparently because of people like you and Richard Tol who like to misrepresent data, we need a consensus of a consensus.
Here you go, educate yourself:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002Ah, no.
First of all please check the credentials and background of John Cook.
Second, the study is flawed and does not prove what you think it does.
It's an excellant example of pure propaganda couched as science.
Don't you mean people claimed the original study he did was flawed, so he then did this study where to ensure that their own bias wasnt influencing the results, the authors reached out to the climate scientists themselves. When the climate scientists rated their own papers, they returned the exact same figure: 97%. And when skeptical economist Richard Tol did his best to dismantle the paper, even he found a 90% consensus.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensusLet me guess though, your proof that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists don't believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities are a bunch of factually and publicly debunked studies like this one that claimed 31,000 disagree?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htmNot only that but you have scientific association after scientific association all on the same page with climate change, unless of course every one of those
entire associations is just "pure propaganda".
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf