How do you think they form their opinions? How can you discount the archived information that then changed in the past 10 years? You don't think that is suspicious? OK, whatever. FYI... there are several scientific organizations and scientists who have and continue to challenge the current 'narrative,' who then are blackballed from YouTube, mocked by those other organizations, etc. There is no consensus, understand.
97-98% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to climate change. That is consensus.
LOL... that stat of 97% came from a self-employed cartoonist... and if you actually check those studies, some did not concur, and MOST indicated they had no idea to what extent (particularly compared to the Sun, Earth tilting, etc.). Just like other BS in the media, people swallowed that whole. Research it. Here's something to help you.
Peered reviewed, lol. Having had research published, I can tell you a few things about this. First, it was a paper that looked at other papers, then made a decision as to how to categorized things. FACT: Several of those scientists were pissed that their papers were included or that the 97% bullshit, including placing those scientists with certain categories (research it) and watch the cartoon. Second, amazing how scientists who are peer reviewing the work of others are basing an opinion on information they likely know nothing about, SINCE THE 'RESEARCH' HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED THROUGH REPETITION/EXPERIMENT. Do you not recall a few years back that group (three) of researchers who MADE UP research papers and had them published? I guess not.