The above quote is taken from a 2014 report commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, written by Mario Molina et al, entitled What We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change.
The quote continues:
“Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4° F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”
The website SkepticalScience.com covers similar ground, quoting authors of seven different climate consensus studies (Molina was not one of them) who agreed on a consensus position between their consensus studies. The seven authors agreed on the position that:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
The 97% climate change stat is one that is often repeated but not often cited. There’s nothing wrong with questioning the veracity of that statistic – informed skepticism is almost always a good thing. But the evidence behind this statistic is very solid.
Happy Sisyphus 
True, but will not be published due to corruption and Warmists’ agendas trumping real science is what the respondents mean when they agree with the statement that anthropogenic climate change is real – i.e., we have no idea and will not be allowed to have one how many scientists agreed that Man causes some level of climate change but don’t agree about the amount and/or the means.
LikeLike
How are you defining ‘real science’? How do you know there is corruption preventing dissenting opinions from being published? Can you give examples of people conducting this ‘real science’?
LikeLike
By “real science,” I simply meant approaching research and findings from a pure evidentiary perspective, not an agenda-driven one and. of course, understanding that the science is rarely, if ever, actually settled. Oh! And yes, that failing is true of both sides of that argument.
As for the corruption, just look up either how Mann and his friends suborned the peer review process to “not cloud” the AGW findings with dissent or look at how many corruption allegations, reports, and charges have been filed against people in the IPCC since its inception.
LikeLike
You’ve not given examples of what you consider to be ‘real science’.
You’re right that science is almost never totally settled, but there’s some things that are very, very likely to be true – gravity for instance. If a group of people said that gravity isn’t true, I’d want some strong counter-arguments, not just vague insinuations of corruption before I changed my mind.
Can you give details of this quote from Mann? (Presumably Michael E. Mann?) I can’t find the quote online and it’s not one that I’m familiar with.
LikeLike
On Mann (adequate link; ignore editorial parts): https://www.abqjournal.com/3362/hacked-climate-emails-and-the-peer-review-process.html
As for examples of real science: Let’s – for reasons that will make more sense shortly – go with Einstein’s work with relativity and all the confirmation tests performed upon that theory.
A more apropros example would be the actions of the folks who looked at the ground temperature data for AGW and then went out and QA’d the sensors to make sure that they were both accurately tuned and were in similar circumstances to when they were installed (Mostly, yes, though some deny that “mostly” for their own reasons).
But…for you, gravity is a poor example, given that Aristotelian gravity was overturned by Newton, and Newtonian gravity was in turn overturned by Einstein. So, given that we’ve changed our understanding of gravity multiple times, it’s not that likely to be true as we understand it now. (especially since we’ve had to come up with BOTH dark matter and dark energy to explain the effects we’re seeing.) 😉
LikeLike