Pretty sure multiple fallacies here?

Can you detect any fallacies in this post:

Human mind works in wonderous ways. For instance, it is well known that a claim repeated multiple times is seen as more truthful by default than a claim made once, even if in both cases the claim is completely empty and zero evidence is provided in its support. Here we see an example of a person citing the popular "97% consensus" claim based solely on him having run into it again and again, never wondering if, perhaps, the claim might be insubstantiated - or even downright nonsensical.

The latter is the case here. What exactly does it mean, "97% scientific consensus on climate change"? Does it mean that 97% of scientific papers published agree on absolutely everything pertaining to climate change? "Consensus on climate change" is a meaningless word salad. And if you actually bothered to look up the original source on which this popular claim is made, you would learn (assuming you are capable of understanding the original paper, which I highly doubt you are based on the reasoning ability you have demonstrated so far) that the claim has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to assert here.

People sometimes wonder how someone can seriously believe that, say, the Earth is flat, or that it is 6,000 years old... Yet it does not at all surprise them that people believe in something sounding slightly plausible based on exactly as much logic and evidence as those beliefs. Perhaps it is because the image of a person making the 6,000 years claim they have is that of a religious zealot yelling into the crowd about the impending apocalypse, while the image of a person making the 97% claim they have is that of an esteemed professor speaking at some intergovernmental panel. It is a bit unfortunate that many people give much more importance to these arbitrary heuristics than to sound reasoning, but that is how their minds work and nobody can change that.

This was in response to someone stating this: 

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change. Global warming is here now, caused by humans, and the main driver is co2 from industrial activity. Most of the heat has gone into the ocean.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

To me, this is a clear case of gaslighting . So common these days it is literally sickening to me. Constantly make people doubt reality and facts by often asking questions where the purpose of the question isn't to find the answer, but sow doubt. Not a fallacy, but a serious manipulation technique to which people must be aware.

ChatGPT to the rescue here:

The notion of a "97% scientific consensus" on climate change refers to the overwhelming agreement among actively publishing climate scientists that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the main cause of recent global warming.

One of the most cited studies that identified this consensus is by Cook et al. (2013), published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. They analyzed around 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published between 1991 and 2011. The study found that among those papers which expressed a position on the cause of recent global warming, 97.1% supported the consensus that it is anthropogenically (human-caused) driven.

It's important to note that the exact percentage can vary slightly depending on the specifics of the analysis and the definitions used, but multiple studies using different methodologies have reached broadly similar conclusions. These studies underscore the strong scientific agreement on the human influence on climate change.

However, while there's a strong consensus among climate scientists, the general public may not always be aware of the depth of this agreement, and there are still debates in the media and political arenas that can create the impression of more disagreement than actually exists within the scientific community.

"But what if liberal lefties created chatGPT? Didn't you know that chatGPT is known to make stuff up? What if they are making this up? What if were all living in the Matrix, does climate change even matter? ChatGPT was create just to persecute Trump, didn't you know that?"

It looks to me that you have several errors in play here. Bias, of course, and fallacies. Since this is a fallacy forum, I’ll examine one fallacy of several.

The first step is to ask yourself what is a person citing the “popular 97% consensus” really trying to do. The answer I’ve encountered is to coerce you into changing your mind. 

The Fallacy of the Argument from Intimidation appeals to moral self-doubt and reliance on the victim’s fear, guilt, or ignorance. It is used as an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, personally attacking by threatening the victim of being considered morally unworthy, uneducated, or just plain stupid. An ad hominem attack. In my experience, the pattern: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” Or, “Everyone knows that ...” 

Before trusting an expert, one must determine whether the expert’s claims are valid. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of bias or conflict of interest.

Two scientists with good credentials commonly examine the same facts and come to different conclusions. John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize-winning physicist, told the audience at Quantum Korea 2023, “I believe that climate change is not a crisis.” He described the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.”

The physicist says the amount of CO2 is not important and “we are totally awash in pseudoscience. He was scheduled to speak at the IMF on July 23, 2023, but the IMF canceled his talk due to his stance on carbon emissions.  

So how do you know which one is right? You have to test the testimony. Otherwise, all you have is a one-sided monologue. 

We cannot have a rule by experts, as all too many examples provide. There was a time, for example, when “all” the respected scientists believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. You would be imprisoned or killed to suggest otherwise. 

But there is an issue beyond the experts. Even if an expert is correct in what the expert claims within his field of expertise, it can lead to tragedy. This is because each specialized group sees an ever-shrinking piece of the more giant puzzle of life and focuses on what are minutiae when analyzing the situation as a whole., i.e., the Big Picture. What is a reasonable course of action within their narrow field of expertise is not reasonable when viewed as a part of the Big Picture. 

The world learned this, for example, during the Covid pandemic. Virologists were concerned only with the virus and not the more significant effects on human life. As a result, the cure became worse than the disease.

You do not need to be an expert in the field under discussion. But you do need to examine the evidence and the process upon which the experts claim to base their conclusion (opinion). The evidence that scientists bring to the table is critically important — not their conclusions —  otherwise, you have abnegated your mind to theirs.