That statement doesn't even make sense. I described a (partial) list of reasons for my doubt. You have not rebutted them, but claim they justify your acceptance.
Referencing zealots is relevant in pointing out that the argument is often one-sided. A lot of the claims about global warming do cite justifications that are unsupported by either reasoning or evidence. But, somehow, questioning those claims or their justifications is not permitted.
Sure, some of the claims are rebutted by evidence and conclusions. However that is not true of all of them.
Not on its own, it isn't.
What do climate scientists mean when they use the term "man-made global warming"?
Does the term mean that activities of man contribute to global warming? Or does the term mean that activities of man have impacts on global warming that dominate other contributors?
Logically, if most scientists think in terms of the first, a fair majority would answer in the affirmative - it is hard to mount a logical argument to dispute that. But if they use the term to mean the latter, it is harder to provide evidence.
It is also not stated how the statistics were (or, in this case, the statistic was) gathered. Is it based on a rigorous survey method, or is it done by a show of hands at a conference? If such statistics are gathered at conferences concerned with global warming, can they really be considered representative of the community of climate scientists?
I can't say what those answers are - there is no such information on that other than the cited statistic. But that doesn't stop people citing such figures as a "powerful statement" .... when it supports the conclusion they want.
There is a saying "Lies, damned lies, and statistics", which refers to the usage of statistics to bolster weak arguments. The thing is, many things influence statistical results other than the truth. In surveys, the manner in which a question is asked can significantly affect the responses. Selection and sampling biases can affect who actually gets surveyed. Even if the survey process is completely unbiased there is a systematic difference between people who choose to complete the survey and those who don't. Once the numbers are gathered, there are interpretation biases - such as equating correlation and causality.
Do you have evidence to back up that claim?
It is true that, when a group converges on a viewpoint, that some of the more divergent possibilities are filtered out. Some contributors to that are statistical - by definition, calculating statistics based on a collection of samples filters out the outliers. Others are not - the group often converges on a viewpoint held by dominant members of that group. For example, a collective view of a lot of scientists will give greater weight to a senior scientist than to a junior one. In any group, scientific or otherwise, the stated view of a few extroverts will tend to be better known to the group than the stated view of a few introverts.
A group of scientists is no more immune to politics and influence of other scientists than any other group of people.
There is a need to "get into the weeds" when the theories are cited as fact, and used as the basis for policy, lobbying, and browbeating people.
The theories of quantum mechanics and evolution are cited as exactly that. The theories concerned with global warning, however, are often cited as the basis of truth - and anyone not accepting that truth is deemed ignorant. There is a logical difference.
You have no knowledge of whether there are experts on global warming on this site or not. There is nothing that excludes a professional software developer from being a recognised expert in global warming.
In the end, that argument cuts both ways. Without the presence of (or knowledge of the presence of) experts on global warming, you have no basis for claiming that the questions and doubt of people here are invalid either.
That's your belief - but you have provided no supporting evidence for that.
The existence of questions and skepticism here also does not mean that they have been properly answered in some rigorous manner elsewhere.