Tomorton has put forth a typical view on the side of warmists ( I use that term not pejoratively, but as a simple method to position a person's views, skeptics would be the obverse term).
The approach creates a logical flaw called 'argument from authority.' Consider economists, for example, or TV pundits about the markets and how often they are wrong. Or, for science, consider phrenology, eugenics, phlogiston theory, Potlemaic cycles and many, many other theories now proved wrong. The advance of science occurs mostly by well-accepted theories being overturned - hence proving the majority of scientists wrong. Science is not consensual - it is based in phenomenological truth value.
The scientific community is far from united. The 97% consensus has a strong body of criticism against it, even including many members of the IPCC itself. {EDIT} None of the papers claiming a high consensus was written by a statistical analyst, nor even a credentialed scientist. The best cited example is probably Cook, et al. Cook is a funded blogger. His methodology was to check about 10,000 papers for mention of global warming. If it was mentioned without expressing a negative opinion, the paper was was considered to support the 'consensus' view, even if no opinion was stated one way or another. Less than 1% of these papers explicitly supported the warmist view. Most referenced Global Warming without affirming or denying. This is not legitimate consensus. It is contrived. Many authors who are skeptics were placed in the consensus category - to which they publicly objected.
Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative” (Tol, 2013).
The other widely cited study was filtered to leave a sample size of only 79 scientists. I believe the arguments against small and selected sample sizes are easy enough to adduce that I can let people draw their own assumptions.
Further, you have not addressed any my concerns. The above 3 problems I list, especially the temp rise preceding CO2 rise, are fatal arguments. It is impossible, by definition for a cause to occur after its effect; therefore CO2 increase was not the cause of higher temps in the past. However, the correlative link between CO2 and temps, which does exist, is pointed to as a primary confirmation of the proof of global warming. As shown, the argument is not valid. Hence, I am a skeptic.
It is also virtually impossible (in scientific terms 1 in 100 billion perhaps) that a global cause (4400ppm CO2) could occur without causing the feared consequence (runaway temps) then a far less extreme concentration (400ppm) cause that same consequence. The premise is fundamentally absurd.
I believe climate change is fear porn.
