system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Consensus based arguments against climate skeptics that state "97% of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change" are stupid

To be sure, the fact that anthropogenic climate change exists is borne out by the data. Not by the consensus of scientists. Talking about a high percentage of scientists giving their opinions confounds the issue by implying that *facts* are a matter of *opinions* of scientists. This is antithetical to the scientific method, whose whole point is to remove subjectivity and opinion from the business of finding out the truth.

Almost all climate data is now publicly available and should be used a basis for argumentation. Democratic consensus is not and has never been the test of whether something is "true".
gpt
The claim of consensus is not meant to serve as proof that climate change exists, but it is meant as a refutation of the **skeptic** claim that "Most scientists don't believe in climate change", or something similar.

One of the primary tactics of the denier side (let's stop calling them skeptics; it's giving them far too much credit) is to sow doubt by claiming that "the science isn't settled", as though there's still a raging debate within the climate science community, when there is very clearly not.

The fact that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree on this conclusion is meant not to say "So you should believe it, too", but simply to say that yes, science DOES agree on this, and there isn't nearly as much open debate as Fox News would like you to believe there is.