december, not all scientists believe in evolution either. You are never going to have complete unanimity. However, the fact that all the scientists that I know of who hold strong contrarian views on global warming all seem to have strong ties to libertarian or right wing think-tanks and/or Western Fuels Association, etc. suggest to me (along with other evidence such as the reports of the IPCC and the NAS) that nearly all scientists in the field who don’t have major personal biases do now agree with the general consensus on global warming. (Which is that the net warming we have seen in the 20th century is likely due mainly to human activity and that we will very likely to certainly see significant anthrogenic arming in the 21st century.) Hell, even some of the contrarians like Patrick Michaels (Prof at U.Va., Fellow at the Cato Institute, and with funding from Western Fuels Association) no longer dispute the fact that anthrogenic warming is a reality…Rather, Michaels now argues that it will be near the lower end of the IPCC estimates and that it will be “no big deal” (mainly because of where he believes most of the warming will occur).
A rough analogy would be if all the scientists who believed in anthrogenic global warming had strong ties to Greenpeace or the Socialist Party or some such things, while the rest of the scientific community didn’t believe in it. I doubt that such an imaginary situation in the reverse direction would prompt you to conclude that the scientific question was still largely undecided.