Here’s a way more robust article than your source, with way more support than the flimsy articles…
Dan Chen
1

Chen, what you sent is as flimsy as tissue paper! As Ethan Siegel noted in his Medium article…

“You must remember, my dear lady, the most important rule of any successful illusion: First, the people must want to believe in it.” -Libba Bray

And you Chen, want to believe AGW is real so badly, you will refuse to accept what superior science tells us all! Try the following, I looked at your single weak attempt to provide evidence to back your fanaticism.

I used to read Skeptical Science… when I first started researching… in 2009. I quickly learned that site was as blind as you are… so I moved on to reading what the scientists, and researchers, wrote. If you consider SS a worthy site… you need to graduate from kindergarden!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980?tesla=y

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Then there is this one… by PHD Professor of climate Change, Mike Hulme… University of East Anglia (the home of the infamous “Climategate” scandal)

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

I can supply you many more articles (and statements) from top climate scientists all over the world, if mere numbers is all it takes to wake you up! I would have thought you would be more interested in comparing both sides of the argument, after reading what I have sent you… you DID take the time to actually read the articles?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.