Nice try, people.
From the article I quote at the start of this thread:
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
...However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
...Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
The comparison with the creationism flap doesn't stand up for a second.
Your little analogy might be accurate if 1 out of 4 scientists had doubts about whether or not the Earth was more than 6,000 years old, never mind 3 out of 4, or 9 out of 10.
Your implication that the mechanisms and degree of global warming fall into the same "slam dunk" category as the fact that the Earth is more that 6,000 years old is false.