not many. 31000 out of 12000000 how many scientists in a field that would be knowledgeable about global warming dispute global warming? very few. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/statistics-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/
The 31000 number is incorrect - it was taken from an online poll which included dentists, engineers and other non-climatologists.
There have been a number of surveys done that attempt to quantify the degree of consensus in scientific opinion. They all find the same thing - the science overwhelmingly backs the AGW proposition. Here is commentary on one of those surveys which finds that 97% of expert climate scientists agree with AGW: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm The fact that many national science academies and professional scientific associations of international standing also back the AGW proposition and not a one contests it also is very good evidence of the the degree of consensus. Here is a very enlightening video about denialism presented by a professor of science history. The first half deals with history of climate science/global warming showing the development of knowledge in the field. The second half deals with the methods and motivations of leading denialists showing how they have adopted the same methods of sowing doubt and confusion as used against science demonstrating the dangers of smoking. Indeed some of the same individuals have been involved in both: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Is the 12,000,000 number "correct", as in representing only climatologists? If my math is correct that would mean 0.18% of the population or 1.8 persons out of every 1000 on the planet is a climatologist or some sort of long term weather expert.
Good point. For the purposes of the discussion global-warming deniers like to obfuscate with everybody from dentists to mechanics as "scientists." The people that should be focused on are climatologists. 97% of climatologists agree that global warming is happening, by the way. "The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". "Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
We have William M. Gray. He is considered to be the world's foremost expert of predicting hurricanes. That doesn't count though, he is too.......(fill in any bullshit reason here). We have Richard Lindzen. He is only an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I know. MIT? Wow, what a bunch of shitheads? MIT has zero credibility.
Gray wrote a scientific paper that quoted Michael Crichton. He doesn't even know how the THC works and he uses information that is 50 years out of date. He even did a video spot for a group owned by... guess who... Exxon Mobil. So, err... congratulations? You found someone -- anyone -- to reassure you? Lindzen, meanwhile, was forced to change his views that 20th century warming is real because experiments disproved his theories. But two people is a great start -- you only need a few thousand more and you'll be on to something.