Debunking global warming?

On Thursday, Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report online challenging the IPCC's claim that humans are influencing the climate in a negative manner. The report, labeled as a "consensus buster", draws from the works of "400 prominent scientists." Among those "prominent scientist" is CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville whom expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming. According to Wikipedia “Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University." In this writers opinion, far from a position of prominence in the scientific community. Upon further digging you will notice that while there are many men and women of prominence on the list, there are a few too many with questionable credentials.

May I also suggest that it is possible that Senator Inhofe might have a "hidden" agenda. As I am quite the skeptic when it comes to politicians true motives, I think it is important to note these few facts I have come across in my research. According to opensecrets.org, in 2006 the oil & gas industry was Senator Inhofe's #1 political contributor by sector, contributing approximately $320,000, around 50% more than the next highest contributing sector, utilities. As we know, the oil and gas industries have the most to lose if it is proven that human induced carbon emissions are effecting the earth's temperature. Highly fuel efficient vehicles, emission taxes/ emission trading, alternative energy sources (e.g. biofuels) etc. could all pose a major financial blow to the industry. This is no surprise then that Senator Inhofe is making attempts to debunk global warming. Afterall, Politics 101 tells us to keep our constituents happy, particularly those with the money. I just do not understand how after so much undisputed research and findings by the IPCC, that these "prominent scientists" can attach their names to this report. Probably because they're not very "prominent."