Promoters of global warming used to try to explain the science, but they failed so totally that all they do anymore is fall back on the claim that 97% of the scientists agree with them. They are trying to say that consensus is the ultimate proof of science. A list of problems with that claim is needed.

1. The implication that science is so flawless and self-correcting that the opinions of scientists define a subject is absurd. Scientists are more corrupt than usual, not less, because science is the most complex thing humans do, and it is concealed more than usual because of its complexity. Corruption thrives on the darkness of unaccountability. It means the opinions of scientists do not define a subject.

2. Whether scientists should agree is a question of religion, not objective reality or science. There are no "shoulds" or "agreements" in science. If it isn't totally, objectively defined, it's not science.

3. The 97% number is such blatant fraud that no honest persons could take it serious. Now days, scientists are totally intimidated and dare not disagree with the prevailing claim that humans create global warming. Scientists lose their ability to get grants or publish, and sometimes get fired, for opposing the claim that humans create global warming. Very seldom does a so-called skeptic get published. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen sometimes get published, because they say the science is flawless, but clouds do some cooling. When scientists felt free to express their opinions, about 15 years ago, they were about equally divided on the subject, the simple reason being that the question is one of politics, not science, where opinions are usually about half and half for conservatives and liberals.

4. The method of producing the 97% number for agreement was statistically perverse, as numerous critics described it. Scientists never express such opinions with their publications, yet publications were reviewed to extract the supposed opinions. Extracting something out of nothing is perverse.