No. Science isn’t about majority opinion. If you can’t judge a subject for yourself the default position should be skepticism. Keep in mind that climate scientists would essentially be unemployed if it wasn’t for global warming, society wouldn’t have much need for their skills. Also most climate scientists do not understand the core of the climate change science - the precise chemical reaction in the atmosphere that supposedly leads to warming - so their consensus opinion is shouldn’t matter. They do related research, but they are not in a position to judge the core science. Currently governments hand out research grants and they greatly favor scientists who support climate change, thus paying lip service to climate change is the wise choice for any scientist.
Understanding all the science may be difficult, but discrediting the alarmism actually isn’t very hard to do. Definitely check out the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. I believe that climate change is caused by the sun, which causes the oceans to heat up and emit CO2. Human emissions have no effect.
If you are in doubt about climate change, just consider how remarkably unlikely it is that the atmosphere would actually react to minuscule changes in emissions quickly and predictably. What’s the chance that human emissions are dangerous, but not so dangerous that we can’t do anything about it? It’s insanely unlikely. But the alarmists are telling us that precisely that is the case. Also, it just so happens that the solutions to global warming are exactly the kinds of political changes big government statists tried to push through for decades. It’s all a little too convenient, don’t you think?
If interested, take a look at some of my posts on the subject from another thread.
Yeah, how often has humanity made the mistake of implementing too little statism too late?