While it's true that just because a certain percentage of a population backing a theory does not make it an infallible truth, it's also true that there aren't really any "infallible truths" in science. And we very much agree that most scientists are skeptics, as we need to be convinced with data. That does not, however, necessarily equate to being in a "minority camp". Good science does indeed invite dissent and demand accountability, in the form of data.
There seems to be a decent amount of data backing climate change, and we are presented with more on a pretty routine basis. Just for instance, the relatively rapid warming of Lake Superior (article here.
) We're also seeing more frequent, and more intense storms throughout the region, which lead to more runoff and therefore more nutrient loading. Another example is increased habitat for, and populations of, largemouth bass in Lake Erie where we used to find smallmouth bass.
Do these few examples prove that climate change is real? No. But it is data that backs the hypothesis. Most scientists I work with agree that climate change is occurring, and they've reached that point by poring over data presented to them. If current trends continue, there are potential major environmental and community development/economic impacts that we'll need to deal with. It's better to head off these impacts where we can by using the data available to us and planning accordingly.