Rightly so.
But it would seem that you put more trust in a non-climate scientist such as Stephen Hawkin than notable climate specialists such as:
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "I cannot stress this enough we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."
Garth Paltridge,Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."
Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy almost throughout the last century growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation which has a cooling effect. ... We know that was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
etc
Plenty more available.
Admittedly sourced from Wikipedia, no reason to believe that these quotes are incorrect or taken out of context.
The science is NOT settled.

Sidicks
I keep telling everybody - you can't win. Look at his response. It's laughable, if it didn't make you weep. He tries to refute your argument with exactly the same rhetoric.
In my opinion, you're better off ignoring completely the 'many distinguished scientists/experts' part of the debate. I did, during the time I thought he knew what he was talking about and prepared to read my posts. The basic science and maths speak for themselves. Wait for attempted rebuttals of them, because until you get them it's all smoke and mirrors. Mind you, I doubt you'll get them, because I don't believe he understands it.
But why does no-one ever go back to basics and say this fundamental element of the argument is wrong?If the whole theory is a load of tosh, there must be a fundamental error in the most basic aspects of it that is just waiting to be exposed.So why doesn't somebody expose it?
Please?
And then we can all acknowledge that the deniers were right, eat humble pie and move on.
No one will celebrate more than me if it is conclusively shown that no matter how selfish our actions may be (wantonly burning the worlds reserves of fossil fuel primarily), we at least aren't screwing the planet for future generations as well.
Well, at least we agree on something!
I've read your posts, I just don;t belive the argument is as clear cut as you make out.
Now you are referring to the 'basic science'....?
So this is the 'basic science' that focusses on CO2, which is something like 3% of the atmopshere of which only a small fraction is man made, yet ignores the influence of the sun?!
Do you honestly believe that the sun has a non significant impact on the climate??
To be honest I don't care what you think.

Sidicks
Exactly what I'm saying!!
The answer is there is no current prospect of the basic science being disproved, and its conclusions are inescapable.Hence the smoke & mirrors.
No one is suggesting that the fundamental idea of the 'greenhouse effect' is wrong.
However, the earth clearly isn't a greenhouse, and there are lots of interactions and feedback loops that aren't fully understood (and aren't modelled in the IPCC projections).
So the net impact of greenhouse warming is unknown.
Secondly, and more importantly is to determine the importance of man made CO2 emissions in comparison to other influences on climate e.g. the sun.
From what I've seen, sun activity appears to provide a much stronger explanation for the climate change experienced over the last 10 years, the last 100 years and 1-2,000 years before that.
In my opinion, the CO2 argument does not hold water in this context.
I'm still waiting to hear the argument why the sun is so irrelevant compared to man made CO2!

Sidicks
Sidicks
It was the PEW survey published in 2009/2010 regarding public perceptions towards science.
It was not a climate change survey, nor was it run by a climate change organisation. It was carried out by the Pew Research Centre for People and the Press independantly.
Merely one of the comparatives they measured was differences in scientists and the public with regards to perceptions on many topics, one beign climate change.
So no, not gullible at all.
Sorry, but the names you have listed there are NOT MMGW refuters like you seem to be.
They are skeptical about the accuracy of the data modeling.
"They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling."
.... that's the in the heading from your own list.
Garth Paltridge,Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."
^ in your own post ......
The only ones you could use to support your own position is in the very last section of that wiki page 
Bloody small list as well.
For info I read that page before I posted .... because I am not stupid.
Show us the survey data that shows more than 16% of scientists are skeptics about MMGW.
Show us the survey data that shows more that 3% of climate scientists are skeptics about MMGW.
Even if you manage to only get it into the realms of 60/40 I will have to take you seriously.... but then we all know that's impossible without making it up.
Maybe it doesn't exist because the Illuminate made it all disappear !
So Pew research has some 'charitable trusts', including:
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a leading policy and research institute. It advances debate through analysis, public education and a cooperative approach with business. The center launched in 1998.
The Pew Campaign on Global Warming is aimed at adoption of a national policy to reduce emissions throughout the economy, and the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency seeks more stringent fuel efficiency standards for the nation's cars and trucks.
From pewclimate.org :
Science & Impacts
Climate change poses an extraordinary challenge that demands immediate action. Human activity is a primary cause of the growth in emissions that results in global warming, and the Pew Center strives to increase awareness regarding the science and impacts of this critical problem.
Hmmm
Unbiased survey you say?!
:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
Thanks for that!

sidicks