If the argument was to conserve resources, or even clean the polluted rivers and streams around the world... I'd give it a thumbs up, but frankly the 'scientific' approach and the selected flawed data used to perpetuate the argument for manmade global warming is rather insulting.
I do take exception to "There are always going to be people (whether scientists, those with vested interests or just those who take a perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow) who refuse to accept mainstream views" though. When this all first started being mentioned as a concept, I looked at both sides of the argument without a view one way or the other. More recently I've read through hundreds of papers, looked at the way data is collected and analysed and listened to respected scientists from both sides.
The 'debate' has been framed as 'believers' and 'deniers', so immediately it is no longer scientific. The inference is that if you don't believe this 'mainstream' view based on the evidence presented, you're a 'denier' much in the same way as those who claim the holocaust didn't happen. It sets one side against the other, allowing one side to call the other side idiots without considering their argument.
Notice in my initial post, I didn't say whether I believed one argument or another... I just broke down the survey logically and arrived at a different conclusion to the IPCC. So far I haven't said the Earth isn't warming, nor have I said that environmental issues aren't a concern... but almost immediately I'm 'picking a fight'.... 'is the OP a climate scientist'... and the only constructive response has been anecdotal or citing an entertainer who is paid to have controversial views and wind people up.
Pretty pointless listing any evidence, mentioning Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever (or the many other qualified voices who no longer publish papers due to the bullying and bs) or showing the obvious bias in data release (or non-data release) that happens time and time again... after all, I'm no climate scientist, I'm a 'denier' (automatically presumed may I add simply for broaching a debate) and the latest... I either have a vested interest or take perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow.
Meanwhile those who haven't bothered to take more than a cursory glance at the evidence, choose strawman arguments and anecdotes... they carry on with this 'universally acknowledged' line without accepting that every survey conducted with scientists in the field completely ignore those who disagree with the prescribed 'truth' and take on the views of the minority, whilst reporting the opposite to the worlds media. All of a sudden, politicians who would usually be judged as liars before they even opened their mouths are held up as some sort of freedom fighters, hoisted onto a pedestal... again, ignoring the fact that global warming is now a business.
Science? Yeah right... science by its very nature is debating and not ignoring evidence or data. There is no debate and evidence & data is routinely ignored, so you're right... it is an assault on civil liberties, its a joke. An expensive joke, but a joke all the same. I do wish people would stop calling it climate change though. Climate change is nature itself, it has nothing to do with this pseudo-science or the fraudsters who have hijacked real science.
As for 'picking a fight'... I've better things to do with my time frankly. I revert to my last post... I shall be rather more blunt in my future approach.
This whole thread is founded on the premiss that the IPCC has somehow used a survey with dubious methodology to somehow hoodwink the governments of the world into believing that global warming is a manmade phenomenon and that urgent, expensive and unpopular measures are required to remedy it and that well funded vested interests like the coal, gas and oils industries somehow missed a trick and let them get away with it.
The opening post clearly and repeatedly states that it was the IPCC that commissioned and carried out the survey and published the report suggesting that 97% of climate change scientists support their views. They may well have done but I couldn't find any reference to it in the list (link below) of rather more heavyweight publications listed on the IPCC website. I apologise if I have missed it (I certainly don't have the advantage of having read "hundreds of papers" on the subject) and (to ensure that we are "not ignoring evidence or data") if the OP could point us all in the right direction, we can have a look at it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
However as RonW has pointed out, it may be that rather than IPCC being behind this survey, it was simply some research carried out by a Margaret Zimmerman as part of a masters thesis titled "The Consensus on the Consensus" published by the University of Chicago which has been hijacked by tabloid journalists.
"The major objective of this study is to collect and assess information about the opinions and attitudes of professionals within the field of geosciences (earth sciences) regarding global climate change, and the climate "consensus" debate, as well as to understand the rationale the participants use when forming their opinions by directly surveying a large number of earth scientists. In particular, this study endeavors improve on past survey attempts and provide a more rigorous dataset from which to draw conclusions on the global climate change debate.
Once survey data had been collected, the responses of various participant groups were analyzed and compared with other participant groups, as well as similar responses from the general U.S. public. This masters thesis presents the results of the survey in an effort to advance the understanding of the global climate debate among scientists."
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/paperback/product-4281091.html
As others have suggested, it looks like Ms Zimmerman's work (and that of her mentor Prof Doran) is the basis of the 97% claim (see link below). With respect to the OP, there is a world of difference between tabloid journalists using some sloppy research which may or may not suggest that 97% of north American climate change scientists agree with the IPCC's views and suggesting that the IPCC has based its case on climate change on a simple straw poll of scientists.
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/
It would be surprising if there were not scientists who dispute all or part of the IPCC's case on climate change. I'm sure there would be plenty of funding available from those with a vested interest in keeping things as they are which ensures that IPCC reports are rigorously scrutinised and where appropriate challenged but trying to discredit the consensus that climate change is a problem caused by man on the basis set out in the opening post on thread is misconceived.
On the other hand, if the 97% consensus figure comes from the IPCC itself rather than Ms Zimmerman, doubtless we'll be hearing from the OP in characteristically "blunt" tones!
) and not quite sure what I'm supposed to be asking NASA about but anyway they've stopped replying to my emails since I asked them how the man in the John Lewis Xmas advert got to the moon! 
Not a chance sunshine... you prove me wrong.
