Thank you for the article. And I think it nicely illustrates about what most people really mean by "the science is settled". Its not that we stop examining contrary evidence, or anything like that.
It's just that we've reached a point where, well, we'd be pretty surprised if any of that contrary evidence turned out to be solid. No one is seriously claiming that 97% of *all* scientists accept AGW. Even in the article you linked to, it talks about "a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists".
A biologist is not really a climate scientist. A chemist is not really a climate scientist. A geologist is usually not really a climate scientist.
There are plenty of scientists out there who are studying earthworms, or the stars, or whatever who don't qualify as climate scientists. The 2 claims I have heard that I strongly suspect are true are that 1. A majority of scientists--not specifically 90+%, but something over 50%--accept AGW; and that roughly 97% of *climate* scientists accept AGW.
And I suspect "this Nuccitelli" does, in fact, really believe these things, because multiple studies have come to similar results, varying in part based on exactly what a particular study was testing for.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.