If anyone here is any more ideologically blind than you, I've not seen nor met them. The "studies" you have placed here are absolute garbage and they have been from the beginning from Cook and Orestes. The first was a paper by Oreskes claiming 75% of 1,000 or so papers she had reviewed agreed with the "consensus" favored by the IPCC. Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed the paper and found that only 45% endorsed the "consensus".
Then along came Cook who published his "97% consensus" BS. They "reviewed" 11,944 papers related to climate change. Their finding was "97.1% endorses the scientific consensus on climate change." In reality, 7,930 of those papers took no stance on the subject at all. Upon further review, it was found that Cook and his assistants marked only 64 papers of the 11,944 they had said they read as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man made.
11,944 abstracts "reviewed"
7,930 gave no opinion
3,896 agree man causes "some" warming
64 agree man causes "most" of the warming
41 stated man caused "most" warming since 1950
0 were marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe
So, around 33% agreed man causes "some" warming. Big deal, so do I. The disagreement is on how much and how severe. Less than 1% agree that man has caused "most" of the warming and nobody agreed we were in a "climate crisis".
But, since that big ole "97%" number spouted off by Gore and later Obama resonated so much with apparently brain-dead sheep like you, well, they'll keep funding more of this garbage propaganda...because it apparently works.