A selection of YouTube videos of scientists (not all of them qualified) among thousands isn't a survery of "what the scientists are actually saying".
Straw man; I never said anything about a survey (or "survery").
A much better tool there would be something like a meta review of the literature.
Alright - please, be my guest; go ahead and create your own thread for this.
Let's pretend that you're just a bit dim (you seem rather clever to me) rather than deceptive and have a look at what you've posted on just the first page of this thread.
Are you accusing me of being deceptive? Ok, how specifically am I being deceptive?
Patrick Moore.
Not a climate scientist but in fact a consultant for lobbyists.
Ivae Giaver -
not a climate scientist and advisor to the Heartland Institute - a propagandist for tobacco and oil companies, specialising in falsifying controversy.
William Happer -
not a climate scientist, was hilarioulsy outed by pranksters as a fraud:
"December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."
en.wikipedia.org
Freeman Dyson -
not a climate scientist.
Ad hom attacks and conspiracy theories aside, the title of this thread is not
what the climate scientists are saying, so it seems you're going in the direction of setting up and attacking a straw man.
There are reasons for why it's not limited to just climate scientists; for instance, climate scientists are not biologists, physicians, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, or computer scientists - and vice versa.
Biologists and physicians are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on what's helpful or harmful to living organisms from the environment (which includes the atmosphere).
Some engineers in general are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts who design and can analyze the devices and equipment used to take measurements and record them, such as weather satellites and temperature-monitoring stations, to produce and provide the raw data involved; for instance, they're electronic equipment consisting of transducers (used as sensors) and semiconductors which can produce output that can be skewed by the performance of its power source or by the effects of temperature on them from the hardware itself, they need to be properly calibrated, and it is important to be aware of and to understand the nonlinear properties of semiconductors and transducers in a circuit.
Mathematicians and statisticians are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on the calculations and analysis of the numerical data that's involved.
Computer scientists are relevant to the issue, because they're the experts on things like computer-generated climate prediction models.
I, myself, am not a climate scientist, but with my degrees in both computer science and electrical engineering, I do fall into 2 of these categories; I don't think it's necessary for an individual to have a degree in computer science to look at data from models and observations and recognize GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), such as in this example:
(Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...rsus-the-UAH-and-RSS-satellite_fig4_327993737)
What matters is the relevance of the expertise from the scientists and experts on the subject and issue. Is John Cook a subject matter expert, or a specialist in propaganda?
These individuals are not scientists at all: Al Gore, John Kerry, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Greta Thunberg, Leonardo DiCaprio
Although Bill Nye as a "science communicator" does have a mechanical engineering degree, I would say that it's a subfield of engineering that does not have enough direct relevance to make him a subject matter expert on human-caused climate change; the closest I can think of is as an expert on some of the aspects of the effects of shock, vibration, and temperature on sensors or measuring devices for weather, such as those mounted on satellites, weather balloons, aircraft, etc.
This is what you deem to be "what the scientists are actually saying"? You're absolutely transparent, son.
That's because the good guys don't hide and don't need to hide.