Do you really need 100% agreement on something... anything... before you would take action? Of course not. Even citing your examples, you couldn't get 100% agreement that the Earth is round today.
This subject is well-researched. There is no secret cabal of scheming scientists merrily lining their pockets with taxpayers' money, while laughing behind our backs. Come on, man.
It sounds like you're mostly up to speed on this issue, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize it's a real problem that we've created.
The Causes of Climate Change
And this differs from the private sector how?
Dude, your whole premise that scientists have somehow concocted this is pure fantasy and nothing more than conspiracist fodder.
You are correct, I misspoke. 100% agreement on theory would slow the discovery aspect science, probably tenfold.
Let me rephrase. Cite the study scientist have conducted to confirm what percentage humans contribute to climate change. Given that there have cycles of the earth cooling and warming, over a period of tens of thousands of years and that the majority of scientists who study the subject agree on, it would be nearly impossible to have data for less than 1% of that time and make a significant finding...the caveat being "nearly".
Climatologist are working on a period of time, I believe its 300-500 years worth of hard documented data, to predict what has already happened numerous times over a much larger period of time. And we already know that the earth is in an unprecedented warming cycle of about 12,000 years.(there is a theory that this is exactly why humans have flourished recently). It's not difficult to say Climate change is real, Hopefully we can all agree on it. The question is...what is the best way to stave off inevitability, how much and in what way does human activity contribute.
As far as scientists go. No, there is not a cabal that is wringing there hands with laughter at the taxpayer expense. However, many universities are government funded entities. If you choose Acedemics as a profession, want to be tenured and want to be tenured at a university that can help you justify the student loans to get that PhD, you conduct research in a line that will provide interest and buzz, to top tiered journals. I could go on and on about the fallacies of academic research and what subjects journals will turn down, even from top scientists in thier field, because its deemed "controversial" or "not in line with our values".
By the way, they two questions cited in the survey that produced the 98% argument.
1. Do you agree that climate change is a real phenomenon
2. Do you believe human activity contributes to climate change.
There was never a significant non-binary question on the subject in the survey. And the survey was also sent to a wide range of scientists, not just climatologist.
About 15 years ago a Dr. penned a bogus article about the nutritional benefit of dark chocolate, you may have heard of the benefits by reading one of the numerous articles or seeing it on a commercial. It was published in a checkout counter magazine and generated an enormous amount of buzz. He did this to prove a point and he came clean about his research, that pointed out there was no evidence whatsoever that dark chocolate had a nutritional benifit. Even though he came clean, publicly, others picked up on the " benefits" and printed articles for many years touting the falsehood. It proved his point beyond doubt, that if enough money is involved, and a career is on the line, you can get people to do some pretty unscrupulous things. I intentionally use "people" because sometimes we forget scientist are still people and suffer the same affliction as the rest of us humans.
So yeah, it happens.
Climate change is real, we should discuss it openly and freely without the persecution for different points of view. Thats the only way a resolution will be found.