Also, can’t remember the exact percentage, but something like 90% of the “research” is based on Mann’s regurgitated data which we know was manipulated. So, at the time that 97 percent were agreeing, they were looking at what we now know to be crap data/models.
For me, you can throw all that aside. What proves it’s a scam to me is that “weather events” keep happening that they did NOT predict. Then they scramble to explain it by force-fitting it to their lies. If the models are so freakin’ perfect, why didn’t they know it BEFORE the event?
Bottom line is, you don NOT have to be scientist to know BS when you smell it.
I’ve been seeing the term “Climate Inconsistency” pop up a lot lately. I think its the next label they intend to use.