Go back 50 years and 100% of doctors thought stress and diet caused stomach ulcers. We now know that's not true.

I'm not using this fact as a knock against climate change. I'm just saying consensus across academics doesn't mean they are right.

If you had said "There is consensus across academics that humans activity is mostly likely the cause of global warming" than I wouldn't disagree.

This is how science works: there's a current understanding of the world; and if you want to change that, you have to come up with the counterexamples or other scientific evidence to back up your claim. You can't just stick your head in the sand and say that since I don't believe these guys, they must be wrong.

To take your remark about doctor's a century earlier, germ theory was met with derision[1] :

> [...] Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

Sometimes prevailing wisdom is discountable but sometimes it's not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Discovery_of_...

I think it could be said that it is a fact that the Earth has warmed significantly over the past century. I think the evidence suggests that the trendline is atypical of normal patterns. I wouldn't call the trendline abnormality a fact at this point, but I think the evidence is very strong.

If someone had a conclusion was "the Earth is warming but I'm not sure humans are the cause", I would say that's fine. It recognizes the facts and strong trendlines above. It goes against consensus, but if they had some interesting data to go with their doubt, I would hope this analysis would be welcome.

"Global warming is a hoax!" type statements on the other hand tends to be completely dismissive sometimes of even the facts we have.

Ive had a few chances to personally speak with some scientists and they were not 99% sure what is happening