No they don't.
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
climate.nasa.gov
There is a big difference between believing that global warming is human-caused, and the climate alarmism propounded by the IPCC and NASA.
Once again -- no.
Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
www.theguardian.com
This link does not differentiate between "scientists" and climate scientists. Does a molecular biologist know any more about the climate than I do? In general, no.
In my opinion, claims of consensus are just something for alarmists to hide behind to avoid legitimate debate.
Remove "likely" and "partially" and you will get closer to the truth. But I bet scientists are really glad that "you agree".
It is relatively well established that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause about 1° C of warming. We're halfway to doubling the CO2, and we've warmed 1.2° C so far. There are only two options:
a) Our climate system contains strong net positive feedback, amplifying warming from the extra CO2, or
b) The warming is partially caused by natural processes
No one has been able to conclusively measure the net feedback. Attempts to measure it from satellite data have produced widely varying results, likely due to non-measurable radiative forcing (ie. changes in cloud cover) that obscures radiative feedback.
A system with strong net positive feedback is inherently unstable, and small amounts of forcing can cause a runaway effect. In the case of the earth's climate, it seems unlikely that life would survive in a system dominated by positive feedbacks. This is why I used "partially".
Measured past temperature changes do not closely correspond to and follow CO2 changes. It has not been conclusively shown that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming, even though it likely. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03...lamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/ This is why I used "likely".