Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

They argue this one with evolution as well, it's popular to use the, "majority of scientists believe" card, as an INDIRECT ARGUMENT.Indirect arguments don't count as direct arguments and the, "most scientists believe" card, is just argumentum ad populum. (an appeal to popularity).Most evolutionists use two ploys;1. The "most scientists believe" card.
2. The "science denier" ad-hom personal attack (so that people will stereotype anyone who doesn't accept the popular conclusion of mainstreamists.)The main reason why the "most scientists" statistic is a poor argument, is because basically it's pretty much a tautology that if someone is a scientist, that joins science with a philosophy of methodological naturalism, and accepts science, and has the philosophy that all science is put through the method is accepted, is then going to accept what science says.Think about that for a moment. Is a person that believes in science, goes into science, believes all theories put forward are of the same value, then going to accept what science officially puts forward?The probability of that is like asking this; "Are you against rape?" Person; "Yes". "Then would you be against me raping you?"Hmmmmmm, I wonder if evolutionists would think it an impressive statistic if we were to show them that all people against rape would say, "yes". OF COURSE most secular scientists accept what secular science says. This is not only expected, it's so banal and tautological it tells us absolutely NOTHING about the veracity of the claims within secular science.THE MODIFIED ARGUMENT:The evolutionist usually then modifies the argument to; "but all evolutionist scientists would say evolution is factual".Does this count as telling us more? What are the chances a person that studies evolution, goes into that field, believes it to be true and believes in science?It tells us nothing really. We might as well just respond thus; "but all creationist qualified scientists reject evolution".These things tell us little, they are just part and parcel of the evolutionists dependence on indirect argumentation. The reason evolutionists depend upon indirect argumentation is because direct argumentation never favours their theories."But mike all science is equal being put through the method".NOPE. That's a non-sequitur, just as it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that because a Ferrari car and a Skoda car both passed a vehicle inspection test for road legality, that therefore the car brakes are of equal performance. In fact the ferrari would bury the skoda.It's the same with exotic air, forces, germs. They all BURY evolution, because we can deduce and repeatably induce the same results for air, forces and germs. But what you can't do even once is show us that the science fiction of primordial blobs can naturally form. In fact every experiment so far is not even 1% of 1% of 1% close to showing any abiogenesis, and all experiments have confirmed biogenesis.CONCLUSION: 5 trillion times in a row I can show germs exist, exotic air, and downforce, but evolution and abiogenesis cannot be shown even once.Lol!