Yes, well:-

Hardly among the most credible of sources.

I listen to the best. You put faith in the rest.

You've given no reason to suppose that you know any more of the science than I do. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet you assert that the science is "full of holes". You're keen to believe that, but lack the skills to make the assessment.

The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is based on 77 anonymous scientists who responded to a an online survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, the survey authors selectively whittled down the responses to just 77 scientists.  So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but 75 out of only 77 scientists. Thus, the oft repeated 97 percent “consensus’ is based on only 75 anonymous scientists.

Yet, on this basis some say we should tax and eliminate hydrocarbon use, severely restricting U.S. job creation and economic growth.

(CNN) -- Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet.

Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Wait -- pro-nuclear environmentalists? Isn't that an oxymoron? Apparently, not so much anymore.

Embracing nuclear is the only way, the scientists believe, to reverse the looming threat of climate change which they blame on fossil fuels. Depending who you ask, they're either abandoning -- or leading -- traditional environmentalists who for a half-century have rejected clean-burning nuclear power as too expensive or too dangerous. Opponents cite disasters at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile island.