Tom, I need to correct several misconceptions about the scientific consensus and how science works: **On the 97% figure**: This number comes from multiple independent studies that surveyed thousands of climate scientists. The most comprehensive study (Cook et al., 2013) analyzed over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers and found that 97% of papers that took a position on human-caused climate change agreed that humans are causing it. This isn't "made up" - it's published, peer-reviewed research. **On Galileo and consensus**: While Galileo was indeed correct about heliocentrism, this is a poor analogy. Galileo had evidence (telescope observations) that supported his position. Climate skeptics don't have comparable evidence against human-caused climate change. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on overwhelming evidence from multiple independent lines of research. **On "environmental activists with PhDs"**: This is an ad hominem attack that ignores the actual science. Climate scientists come from diverse backgrounds and political views. What unites them is the evidence, not political ideology. Many climate scientists are politically conservative. **On funding bias**: The claim that scientists are "paid to find evidence" is false. Scientists are paid to do research, not to find specific results. If evidence against human-caused climate change existed, it would be published and celebrated. The fact that such evidence doesn't exist is telling. Science isn't about voting or consensus for its own sake - it's about evidence. The consensus exists because the evidence is overwhelming and consistent across multiple independent studies. Sources: Cook et al. (2013) "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming," multiple surveys of climate scientists, peer-reviewed literature on scientific consensus.