So they have.
"It is often claimed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

The 97 percent claim, however, has been picked apart by independent analysts who examined the numbers in the study done by Aussie climate researcher John Cook of the University of Queensland.

Five climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most scientists surveyed. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent."

So much for consensus. The alarmists win the same way the squeaky wheel gets the grease...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/05/aussie...

I know there are scientists and engineers among us, so correct me if I'm wrong. Scientific study is entirely dependent on FACT derived from reproduce-able processes or FACT gathered by way of reliable and verifiable means. Groundbreaking science is subject to peer review, yes? If data and results are falsified to make a stronger argument for any reason it invalidate the work. If true, then why isn't this the case with man-made global warming (called Climate Change these days). Its is proven that data was falsified and that reports knowing built their cases on false data, Isn't this enough to invalidate the argument?

Link that worked for me:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/05/aussie...