&gt;overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying<p>I&#x27;ve never understood this argument. What does agreement of other scientists from unrelated fields have to do with the soundness of a scientific theory? It&#x27;s a thinly-veiled appeal to authority that I think really weakens non-scientific peoples&#x27; perceptions about how science works.<p>&gt;Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher<p>And neither are the majority of professional scientists that agree. Every scientist I&#x27;ve worked with (computational physics) doesn&#x27;t know anything about climate science and (probably rightly) assumes that the people in the field know what they are doing so they agree because they trust the process. However, the approval of scientists in unrelated fields is about a relevant as the approval of a politician. So just stick with facts about the research itself.<p>Additionally, there have been many times where &quot;the overwhelming majority of scientists&quot; have believed something that is incorrect. The thing that makes science special is that it is not a democracy. Theories are validated on their logic and evidence, not on whether or not they please a particular community of people.<p>tl;dr. Stop bringing up how many people agree with something. It&#x27;s not scientifically relevant.