How many scientists disagree with global warming.?

Plenty. It depends on your meaning of disagree. There are scientists who disagree with various aspects of climate science, particularly in the subfield with which they are more familiar. The IPCC itself has dialed back some of its conclusions, though for political reasons they have hidden the extent to which it has changed its conclusions. For example, they no longer provided a best estimate of global warming, because it was so much lower than in the previous report.

Scientists Disagree With Global Warming

Wow, the geezer hypothesis holds. First the list you give does not disagree with global warming. You are simply not honest in that claim. Second, the average age of that group is about 90; Have any of them been involved with research since the 1970s?

Which has published research that counters global warming since the 1970s? That's a real question. I'd like to read their paper.

Many of the "scientists" on this list are either not scientists, or are paid by big oil to create confusion, just as the tobacco industry paid "scientists" to say the connection between smoking and lung cancer was not proven.

If we accept the word of the organizers of the "Oregon Petition", 31,478 (about ~0.3% of all US science graduates.) stated that CO2 will not cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is a list of more than 31,000 scientists that reject man-made Global Warming. http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Their signatures are in agreement with this statement:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

-----------------------

That's not a whole lot considering that tens of thousands agree with it--and you've included multiple dead scientists (it's hard to keep up on scientific advances once you're dead). Some of these guys have been dead for LONG time.

You've also included Mafia member Antonino Zichichi, of whom Nobel Prize winner said "excellent organizer, mediocre physicist"

After taking him to lunch and driving him around one day, I wouldn't trust Fred Singer at all. When he didn't want to answer difficult questions, he would pretend not to be able to hear them.

Tsonis has a very bad error in his book "An Introduction to Atmospheric Thermodynamics" that I pointed out to him after the first edition came out. He didn't seem to understand what the problem was, but if what he said were true, then barometers would have to be kept outside and it would be very dangerous to open doors.

I should also have mentioned that Steven Koonin was Chief Scientist for BP!

Those Scientists who are not slurping up Taxpayer dollars for inane "research" with predetermined results blaming Man's carbon footprint for everything that is evil.

You forgot to add me (just kidding). I suspect the vast majority of scientists (all the smart ones) are skeptical that our CO2 has or will cause significant or harmful warming.

I disagree too. I am a thinking being so my ideas count too.