Almost all scientists? Basically, except the ones with an agenda?
Check out where that talk was given. Climate change is inconvenient for them because it's mostly an externality that can't reasonably be solved without government, taxes, or changes to capitalist and individual behaviors.
"The Steamboat Institute promotes America's first principles and inspires active involvement in the defense of liberty. We stand for the following five founding principles:
1) Limited government
2) Limited taxes and fiscal responsibility
3) Free market capitalism
4) Strong national defense
5) Individual rights and responsibilities
"
The only thing that will truly solve climate change is technological innovation. The best system ever invented for that is free market capitalism.
People on the left seem to think _all_ people on the right "don't believe in climate change". The truth is that many people don't believe the government can solve the problem...
Unless you can convince all of Africa and India to not want electricity, air conditioning, refrigeration, and roads, we better come up with a technological innovation in power generation or some other area that massively impacts the amount of emissions they will begin generating this century.
Africa (a whole continent) and India consume a lot less per capita & could benefit from the intellectual property we don't share with them. It's in all of our interests to help them electrify differently than previous nation states.
We already have the solutions. We instead subsidize meat, dairy, and fossil fuels. We're lucky "developing countries" don't consume at the rate Americans do or we'd already need 5 planets to satisfy the demand. I'm sorry thermodynamics and physics are inconvenient, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to accelerate 2 tons of metal to move one or two people.
We already are. Wind and solar are already quite cheap, and getting cheaper. I used to worry about grid-scale battery storage but sodium and iron-air batteries pretty much have that solved for reasonable cost too.
> questioning established truths is how you actually do science.
and that questioning has been done in decades past and answered, also in decades past.
Your linked video is of a 74 year biologist with a PhD in measuring stream containmination who raises the claims that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial, that there is no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming, and that even if true, increased temperature would be beneficial to life on Earth.
These points have been addressed multiple times since they were first raised decades ago and by many better qualified people whose responses and models you can find should you care to look.
The Earth Sciences have people that look at small things at local scale (Dr. Moore, last active in science some 40+ years past) and others that look at planet scale effects (not Dr. Moore).
The blind faith people have in stale claims from tangential retired scientists that make a living shilling for nuclear, logging, GMO industries and other clients of the Heartland Institute that pay to have noise and FUD thrown into the air in any debate regarding consequences of industry is staggering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1z_6pvM-Q