There is logical fallacy to believing in scientists when it is convenient or has some associated benefit, but not when it goes against your political beliefs.
The scientific process that leads to discoveries that produce antibiotics and chemo-therapies is built on the same structure that produces data on global warming. Scientists, themselves, though are very careful to point out that science is never absolute, and that the door is always open for new and better theories.
However, many have taken this to mean that lack of 100% consensus as an absolute truth somehow invalidates the system. Keep in mind that the laws of gravity are still subject to future updating and/or refutation in light of new evidence, but if I hold a sledge hammer over your head, I'm relatively certain you're going to be afraid that it will fall if I release it.
Unfortunately, what seems to happen is that when there is a debate on television on something like global warming/climate change, even if you have 99% of scientists believing in it, and one % that doesn't, as long as you have a one-on-one debate many see it as 50:50. They take this to mean that "all the science isn't in," so we shouldn't believe the majority.
James Inhofe, Senator of Oklahoma stood in the well of the Senate Monday (15 March 2010) and disavowed--once again--climate change.
Deliver us--please--from James Inhofe.
Maybe we need to be a little more like the citizens of Copenhagen.