Quote:Here's some more info on your question. Purdue published a poll. Looking at the three 'scientist' categories, and (mentally) averaging based on the number of responents, it looks like about 55% believe that the climate is changing and humans are mostly responsible. Another 30% believe that humans are about 50% responsible. Since the temperature has flatlined this century, it seems logical to conclude that 'natural' effects have to be at least as strong as anthropogenic effects to be able to counterbalance the effect of the CO2 increase.


 

The poll does not ask whether or not they believe the climate change is a problem. If you believe climate change is happening but it's not a problem, does that make you a skeptic?


 

https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2014/...etable.pdf

 

CSCAP.   Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project.   They're doing work on CORN!   That poll is in no way a poll of climate scientists.  The title is: "Different climate change beliefs among actors in the agricultural sector"   That's right at the top of your link. 

 

Besides, you're citing a poll that says 85% of the participants believe global warming is at least 50% man-made.  If I went with your poll, I'd believe there is an overwhelming consensus that there is global warming and that it is man-made.  

 

How about this for some polls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_...ate_change

 

A lot of reading, but here is the last paragraph: 

 

"James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.^[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming."

 

Seriously, I am really interesting in the views of the skeptics, but the sources you post really suck.  Is there not something better to chew on?   I'm floating along thinking there are two sides to this question, but what I have found out in the last week leads me to question whether the skeptical side of the question has anything going for it at all! 

---