First of all, the scientific consensus is that human activity, mostly the burning of carbon-based fuel, is what creates global warming. But that's not the point here. The point is that with a discourse like what you just posted, it's gonna be harder for the conservatives to pick up voter than it is for a nerd to pick up chicks at a party while speaking klingon.
So, prepare to change your tune or prepare for a 15-20 years long liberal government. Your call.
When you speak of scientific consensus you may want to research the sources from which this sprung, particuallury the 97% oft quoted since it would seem to support that 97% of all scientists involved with climate change research were in the cohort: "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."
The seminal papers that put forth the consensus are quoted here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ NASA, not the Toronto Sun.
and a careful read of one of them yields some interesting facts highlighted in bold:
"Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining
11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
In summary the key stat is that 2/3 of these papers had no opinion and of the ones that had an opinion and who responded to the survey in the second phase supported AGW but
the extent to which humans modify the climate is not specified.
Bit different picture I'd say than the response that we're conditioned to have today of speak the words "climate change" and the mental connection is that we have 12 years to save the Earth from obliteration.
The recent 11,000 signature petition was not vetted for which signatures were backed up by publishing scientists in a field that could make a reasoned judgement about climatology let alone astrophysicists knowledgeable about externalities.
The parallels of propaganda between gun control and climate change guilt run strong. Read "My Big Fat Surprise" about the myth of cholesterol to understand how this is done.
