OK, that was funny. But the 97% number is nonsense, just for the record.
Claiming consensus (or near consensus) isn't "science" anyway. It's "politics" or possibly "religion".
Skepticism about AGW catastrophism is rampant among the world's scientists at large (physicists, biologists, etc.)
Since they are not "climate scientists" their opinion dosn't count here. Even if their skepticism were to come from either their own specialty (which would also include chemists, geologists, paleontologists, archeologists, historians, statisticians, computer scientists, etc.) or their understanding of "scientific method.
and many climate scientists have been cautiously coming out of the closet and poking sticks at the shaky foundations as well.
But would any "true climate scientist" not believe in CAGW? Or is there a "No True Scotsman" fallacy at work here?
I'm a little bit surprised that Slashdot doesn't have more AGW catastrophism skeptics, to be honest. Ordinary people hear "supercomputer driven model simulation" and they think "oooh, it must be really accurate and able to predict the future". Anybody who understands statistics and the banal realities of computation knows the good old GIGO principle.
That would still be a case of "not a climate scientist". The concept of "nobody out side of a group can critique a member's actions, but anyone who might do so wouldn't be allowed to be a member in the first place" isn't that uncommon.
Not to mention the reality that nobody has ever successfully predicted long term climate changes
It's even worst than that. Even models which can "hindcast" have been incapable of forcasting. But few, if any, have been "too cool".