http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/

“So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.”

There are over 2,600,000 scientists in the U.S. alone. As the link at the bottom of this comment points out, even if that 700 were American scientists only (it’s not)…

“That means at least 99.98% of scientists either are on board with the global warming consensus or do not know of this report.”

When you throw in the millions of other scientists world wide, you can see why 700 is a meaningless number. It ends being something like 0.000001 percent of scientists disagree on global warming.

Hey, I have no doubt that 0.0000001 percent of the world’s population think the earth is flat.

I rest my case.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d30-700-scientists-dissent-regarding-global-warmingbut-what-does-that-really-mean

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

Conversely scientists who deny global warming may be on somebody’s payroll.

But if I need to put my money on something,it would be on the majority of world scientists who specialize on temperature changes,ocean movements,atmosphere ozone layers,fish migration,hurricane and eddy formations,CO2 emissions,north and south pole historical girations etc.etc..

This is the story of the boy that cried wolf and this time he is right.

Why didn’t I think of that?

Based on my “personal” beliefs, I look for research, science or opinion to support my personal convictions. If I could find none, I would be forced to concede it must be true. But I can find support for my beliefs so I’m not convinced of the “complete consensus” of the scientific community.

Your speak of dismissing someone because they receive funding from a particular corporate concern I think has already been debunked by Tommy in earlier posts. There is an adequate amount of money on the side of your scientists. Actually, there’s a whole another economy vested in “Global Warming”. (Not to mention a few gazillion in tax dollars.) You shouldn’t deny that, as it does not do you credit.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

“This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.”