97% of scientists don't agree on anything.
And it would prove nothing if they did.
The phony "97% consensus" on climate change was originally from an article by Dr. Peter Doran.
The 97% was based on only 77 questionnaire responses.
And those 77 responses represented under 2.5% of a total of 3,146 questionnaire responses -- dishonestly edited down to 77 to get the 97% number Dr. Doran obviously wanted all along.
The Doran article was based on a survey which Dishonest Doran's graduate student, Maggie Zimmerman, sent to over 10,000 geophysical scientists.
They got 3,146 responses -- then used highly biased editing intended to get a "climate consensus" percentage near 100%.
The Doran survey was a scam from start to finish.
Doran picked only two questions, and both of them were specifically designed to get the answers he wanted.
Both questions were designed so even climate change skeptics like me would give the “right” answers.
Doran had his graduate student survey only people working in academia, or government -- both extremely left-wing environments.
Geophysical scientists working in private industry were not surveyed because they tend to include some conservatives.
After getting the 3,146 responses, Doran excluded all but the most specialized specialists in climate science.
Doran also excluded respondents who gave a “skeptical” answer to the first of the two questions.
In total, he eliminated over 97.5% of the 3,146 respondents.
Of 3,146 responses, only 77 were used for the final “97.4%” calculation.
The first Doran question was:
“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Those who answered “remained relatively constant” or "fallen" were not even asked the second question.
The second Doran question was:
“2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Well, I'm the most skeptical skeptic you'll ever read, yet I believe humans affect the climate in at least two non-CO2 ways, and may affect the climate with CO2 emissions too.
I don't know how much humans affect the climate (because no one knows) so I have no way of knowing if the amount was "significant' ... or too little to be measured.
I probably would have ignored the word "significant" in the question, not knowing what significant meant, and answered the question "yes":
(1) I know towns and cities are much warmer than the surrounding countryside -- meaning that economic growth causes warming, usually called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, and,
(2) Coal and wood burned in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly since the 1970s when China's economic growth took off, constantly throws dark soot on Arctic ice and snow.
Darker ice and snow absorbs more solar energy than pristine clear ice and white snow absorbs, and that means warming.
Doran didn’t allow his graduate student ask any question about what the warmunists really mean by "climate change" -- Catastrophic Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming, such as:
“Do you believe that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will lead to runaway global warming?"
Not that it matters what any scientist "believes" will happen in the future -- because no one can predict the future climate -- we already have 30 years of wrong predictions from those scientists to prove that no one can predict the future climate!
There is nothing visible in the average temperature data since 1850 that even suggests we've had abnormal climate change since then.
In fact, both halves of the 20th century had periods with a small amount of warming.
By "small", I mean small enough to be within reasonable margins of error for the measurements.
Strangely, the earlier warming is attributed to natural causes, but the later, nearly identical warming, is blamed on manmade CO2.
That means the global warmunists are claiming 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly ended in 1975, and then man made CO2 suddenly took over as the "climate controller".
They make that outrageous claim with no attempt to explain how it could happen, or why it would happen!
After making that unproven claim, they cut off all debate with ridicule, character attacks, stupid statements such as "the science is settled", and bold lies, such as "97% of scientists agree".
Meanwhile, the climate in 2017 is wonderful, in spite of computer games 10, 20 and 30 years ago predicting a lot of global warming -- triple of what we've actually had.
Those of us who live in Michigan would like more global warming, and our plants would like more CO2 in the air, and we don't care about computer game wrong climate predictions!