Science is about evidence, not consensus.

Thankfully, Donald Trump is not in consensus with Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) on climate change.

Trump has written: “There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy—so-called green energy—from renewable sources. That's a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don't buy that—and I don't—then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.”

(http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264605/where-clinton-and-trump-stand-–-every-major-issue-john-perazzo )

Neither will Trump be in accord with the Paris climate accord. So, interesting times ahead.

"Science is about evidence, not consensus."

Agreed! One consistent good fact explained in a successful theory that overturns AGW would do the job. Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed scientists I read can't see any! That's why the 30,000 people in your sad little "Oregon Petition" include such illustrious signatories as Donald Duck and Luke Skywalker. Also, what does the opinion of a podiatrist (for one example) have to do with climate change? Yeah, those 30,000 signatures REALLY count! ;-)

So back to evidence? You need to try AGAIN! As I said before...

Dude, there are many other studies into the 97% factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

The 'source' you linked to on 97 studies against 97% was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute. Try harder. With real, not imaginary, stuff.

Also, there is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device?

Let's see, what do all the National Academies of Science say?

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

No one has produced empirical evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

"No one has produced empirical evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming."

That Raycom is because there are not dozens of worlds available on which to do the appropriate experiment.

As long ago as 1859 John Tyndall demonstrated that increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in air could trap heat.

This is what a troll and a dunce puts up as science, from that well known scientific authority, Wikipedia:” it is extremely likely(meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect…”
No science, just a repetition of the baseless assertion by the mendacious IPCC, who being aware that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, assert this nonsense. Trolls like Max support the fraud.
How the National Academies came to support the baseless assertion is not clear, as the troll does not give the source of his assertion.
In the past,when previously reputable entities like the Royal Society, and the American Physical Society made statements supporting the climate lies, their own membership forced withdrawal of the statements because they had no scientific backing. It is irrelevant what statements are made, unless there is science to support the statements, otherwise it is a matter of ascertaining how the making of the baseless statements was procured.We need a Royal Commission or a U.S. Senate enquiry.
So come up with some science, Max, and stop being a disingenuous troll, relying on baseless unscientific assertions.

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, troll?

Hi Leo,
changingthe subject again?

Just to remind you, right now, in this particular exchange, we're discussing how many actual, qualified climate scientists who have a clue what they're talking about actually agree with AGW.
You're trying to change the topic because you're uncomfortable in this terrain.

Facts you have NOT addressed.

1. There are a NUMBER of studies supporting 97% support from legitimate scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

2. NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE
"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change