To be more specific, a Martian probe was destroyed because incompatible legacy software was used and the integration of it was not tested appropriately due to "faster, cheaper, better" funding cuts...

Yes, I used the term "continues to swell" to summarize what I've perceived recently with heavyweights (Curry, Lintzen, Nielsen-Gammon, etc) and numerous field-related PhDs chiming in reciprocating to essentially cry wolf with abuses occurring in the scientific process. Your comparison to Creationism was ridiculous and insulting. Furthermore, your question of "what percentage of qualified climatologists deny that AGW is occurring" is a straw-man. Crackpots aside, the mainstream concern (i.e. the Lintzen camp) lies with uncertainty underlying temperature reconstructions, the relative amount of anthropomorphic contribution, and the GCM-assumed response sensitivity -- i.e. whether there are grounds to say "crisis".
Read Curry's blog. There are egregious flaws in the machine and changes are a'coming.

Good one, my favorite, the false analogy to creation science. How 'bout I quote Wikipedia bio for Judith Curry, who's been writing scathing reviews of essential AGW underpinnings over the last 6 months:

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1] Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992."

Oh and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, essentially another young-earther. Yep, all these scientists who are working to seek higher standards in peer review and advocate reassessment of uncertainty are just like the creationists. Glad the world is so simple for you to figure out.

Nice snark and ironic too since your blithe dismissal contradicts any knowledge of broader global issues involving the plight of over 3 billion who live on less than $2.50/day. Pie-in-the-sky.

Sorta like the moderators who labeled your quite reasonable comment as a "troll".

Well, more recently, the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen where delegates from 183 countries negotiated approaches to reduce CO2 emissions by between -25 and -40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Based on studies like this, we can take on a great deal of pain ourselves but there will still be plenty of pea in the pool if the effort isn't unilateral.

Sure, I'll watch your links as soon as you finish reading:
Hiding the Decline Part I
Hiding the Decline Part II
Hiding the Decline Part III
Or are you in 'denial'?

Give me a break. Your condescending obfuscation aside, the fact remains that contradicting data was obscured from policymakers so not to 'confuse' them. That fact that you and other 'alarmists' (since we're building bridges now by assigning labels like 'denialist') continue to defend this type of behavior is extremely illuminating.

If you think adding barriers to the access of third world countries to the cheapest and most readily available forms of energy will not adversely affect their technological advancement, I really have nothing more to say. It's their development that will dominate the CO2 output over the next 50-100 years. But hey, we got ours, right? Now they can suck it up.

The trouble is, a lot of the population are easily convinced by ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point), because soundbites and well-funded media talking heads and purchased senators are easier to understand than the often complex science, and the less-than-media-savvy scientists working in the field.

True, true, case-in-point, "A Convenient Truth."