@Paul M. the gullible and ignorant
I'd double check your numbers Paul (that's if you even bothered to check them in the first place), rather than repeating what your mates say in the pub or what you read in the right-winged 'hate for any other view' websites. Although the plethora of aforementioned websites will have you believe a large proportion of credible scientist are sceptical, in fact the number is tiny. Isn't that the usual tactic of the unholy alliance of industrialists that see the Earth as theirs to exploit and hate any protection of the environment and the religious who think God controls everything including the climate?! Weird how they've now made out anyone at odds with their worldview are part of some brainwashed 'religion' !! Wake up.
Considering the way scientific consensus works (something you obviously have no party to) it'd be very difficult to kick out scientists that disagree with the majority; dissenting voices are an integral part of the way scientific agreement is made, and theories strengthened.
"If you're a "climate scientist" and you dissent from the AGW mainstream and the AGW payola will go to someone else."
And how much payola is there each year from the likes of Exxon to rubbish AGW AGAINST ALL AVAILABLE SCIENCE!? Exxon makes $1billion a day, more than the entire climate science funding budget each year. I'm surprised you didn't say so (as people as brainwashed as you usually do!) but follow the money!
Weird how you think that quoting a few individuals, whose credential are usually exaggerated or fabricated, and whose agendas are unknown, makes your argument complete. Let me quote you a few quotes:-
"Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."
And here's one that explains the people you quote:
"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases. A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [which] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom."
Sounds just like the individuals you quoted!!
You haven't mentioned junk science yet. I'll tell you where it came from:
"There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. 'Junk science' meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. 'Sound science' meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive."
How about the views of a few respected societies. The consensus of hundreds of member scientists, not just individuals that may be bought:
"The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.”
"The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."
"In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
I could go on all night. I doubt any of it would sway your 'religion'. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold to support life. Burn fossil fuels, and you release more CO2, a greenhouse gas, and temperatures rise. CO2 has been steadily increasing in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and consequentially temperatures rising. Not difficult to work out what's going on, so long as you have an open mind that is!