Science is based on falsifiable predictions. If 1000 leading astronomers agree that light isn't warped by the presence of a massive object, and your theory predicts just that to be detectable during an eclipse, which is then detected, then you have a better theory than the 1000 worthies. This is the scientific method at it's heart. It's laughable that you think only people who disagree with this hypothesis are basing their opinion on their political affiliations.
If there's another better way to determine what results the research points to other than looking at the research and seeing how much of the high-quality stuff points in some direction, please detail your methodology. You should find yourself with an endowed chair at any university you like by September. Science certainly doesn't involve determining which scientist you believe based on your pre-existing political framework. If you can articulate an actual critique of climate-modeling—and of course any model or set of models is going to have problems, which is why people look to see what multiple sets of scientists are doing with multiple methods—let's hear it. If not, guess what, you are playing the "AM radio" game after all.
Yes, yes I did.
I didn't, actually. If you found the CRU emails somehow a compelling demonstration of a global warming hoax, you didn't actually play close attention to how it played out.