I don't think you understand this issue, allow me to explain. A few weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather and CBS came out with a fraudulent report about Bush and Vietnam. It was soon exposed as fraud. Rather's explanation was that even though THAT PARTICULAR REPORT was proven to be false, Rather still believed the SUBSTANCE of it. It's the same thing with the hockey stick. If 95% of climate scientists believed that Michael Mann's hockey stick is accurate, then they cease to be scientists. What you mean to say, like Dan Rather, is that they still believe the substance of what the fake, fraudulent hockey stick represents. Additionally climate scientists would not be in any position to determine whether the original hockey stick was accurate, since the issue WAS NOT the climate, but rather the phony, fake, fraudulent, lying STATISTICAL METHOD that was used to present the graph. McIntyre proved, after attempting to replicate Mann's fraud, that virtually ANY numbers you put into Mann's graph produced a hockey stick shape. That's ANY random numbers at all. Now, if you call that science, or if climate scientists call that science, then they and you have disqualified themselves to discuss science.