The 97% claim is idiocy when you are talking about catastrophic or even serious warming. It should be 100 percent that added CO2 should cause some warming. There is no scientific reason based on the data to assume any significant positive feedback which would make the risk of any serious warming only a fantasy in minds of activists. It is hard to know what activists that depend on dangerous warming to get funding actually think. Some of them seem genuinely stupid so perhaps 30 percent believe in dangerous warming that have enough knowledge where they should know better. Mostly they are just ignorant, greedy or some flavor of leftist activist.

At the heartland institute conference in Las Vegas, a conference of climate skeptics, the scientists there were asked, who thought CO2 in the atmosphere might have warmed or could cause some warming,100% scientists agreed, then they were asked, are CO2 levels increasing, 100% agreed, and is man adding to CO2 in the atmosphere, 100% agreed.

Finally who thought man increasing CO2 would cause dangerous warming, the result, zero scientists thought it would be dangerous.

So your question is nowhere near specific enough.

Worldwide 99% of all scientists accept GW However there are a number of self proclaomed climate scients stirring up trouble with blogs and personal webcites , Their sites contain partial graphs, showing what tisthey want to show and then a lot of misinformation and a proponderance of lies. These deniers are worthless as scientists and have no integrity

Probably all the honest, competent Climate Scientists accept AGW. I'd expect those employed/paid by big oil to say they don't accept it along with some who put idology or politics above science.

Scientists and others from other disciplines may not accept AGW - but who cares?

PS "believe" is the wrong term to describe acceptance/rejection of part of science.

The thing about science is it does not matter what anybody thinks. Galileo said it best: "Science is the child of time, not of authority." At that time nearly 100% of "scientists" believed in Aristotle's aetherial sphere model of the cosmos, all believed in alchemy, nearly all believed life spontaneously arose from piles of rags or pond scum, and very many believed either the human ovum or sperm (hot debate which one) contained a preformed tiny human. Galileo himself was the astrologer to the House of Medici.

There is no single numerical answer to that question. What is meaningful is that every major scientific organization in the world has issued an official statement affirming the reality of AGW - as has even ExxonMobile.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/curre...

======

>>At the heartland institute conference in Las Vegas,<<

Yeah, a conference not recognized or attended by any scientific organization, research facility, or bowling league on the whole damn planet.

the number doesn't matter, science is not a democracy.

Corporations Fund Science Denial http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/22/the-lat...

Only a fool thinks 'Rush Limbaugh and the Koch Bros tell the truth and Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liar'.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. Science is not religion - it doesn't work on the basis of belief it works on the basis of experimental data either supporting or not supporting a theory, and the theory then being adjusted in light of the evidence. On the basis of the evidence that has been obtained to date, the theory that climate change is being increased substantially by carbon dioxide levels that are linked to human activities appears to be correct.

There are many scientists who have nothing to do with climate. This is like asking a climate scientist to comment on neurobiology.

Of the ones who do work on climate, almost all.

none that have an education that they payed for themselves

none that aren't living on government grants

97%.