It may be true in terms of polling data that I know of. But, certainly, scientific societies in other disciplines like the American Physical Society have issued supportive statements on climate change. Admittedly, the Councils of these societies didn’t formally poll their organizations (as far as I know) but I think the fact that there has been no attempt to oust them from office…and only pretty limited protests of the statement…I would guess that a large majority of the members agree with the statement. (That guess is also based on anecdotal knowledge for the case of APS members.)

From what I have discerned from other polls that have been shown on this site, that sentence is only true if written as:

In the scientific community composed only of scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union, I am not out of step with them, in fact, quite the opposite.</

But where are all the comments from those who were skeptics, but then became AGW believers? I can’t recall any [although I don't read every post]. Got any? Show me.

You are not verlikely to find such people frequenting this site.

As usual, you are the one out of step with almost everyone else.

Again, this is a conclusion that is true on this site. In the larger scientific community, I am not out of step with almost everyone else, in fact, quite the opposite.

I really don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing.

That is a fair question and one that I have certainly asked myself from time-to-time. There are people here who disagree with me on the science but have still expressed that they find value in my contributions. And, I guess I find value in reading what people here write and in learning more about the science and how to communicate it in order to respond to what people write.

“…you can always play the game of dismissing the mountains of evidence…”

What ‘mountains’ of evidence? Computer models?

You don’t admit it, but what you really mean is ‘evidence’ other than empirical, real world evidence; flimsy evidence. In many cases, fake evidence.

GCMs are not physical evidence.

Papers hand-waved through the climate peer review process are not empirical evidence.

Year-and-a-half-old push polls are not empirical evidence, and a lot has changed since then.

Real world, empirical evidence shows that as the Earth cools, CO2 continues to rise. That is real evidence, and it trumps polls, computer models, and the cronyism endemic to the corrupt climate peer review process.

Your whole argument always comes down to an appeal to various authorities. As time goes on, it is more and more clear that those authorities are wrong.

Also, there are plenty of comments from others all over this site who say they originally accepted the CO2=AGW conjecture, but then rejected it as they got up to speed on the subject. The comments of AGW believers who later became AGW skeptics has been ramping up. But where are all the comments from those who were skeptics, but then became AGW believers? I can’t recall any [although I don't read every post]. Got any? Show me.

As usual, you are the one out of step with almost everyone else. I really don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing. Aren’t you just wasting your boss’s time here?

It appears that you really believe you know something that we don’t. Please tell us the way things really are, Joel, without simply referring to what others say.

I look forward to your article. If you have what it takes to stand and deliver. Do you?

That poll also shows that a total of 85% of the scientists surveyed believe that global climate change will pose either a very great danger (41%) or moderate danger (44%) to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years while only 13% see relatively little danger.

And, of course, you can always play the game of dismissing the mountains of evidence concerning the scientific viewpoints on AGW just as you dismiss the evidence on AGW itself. You can say that any poll that shows results that you don’t like is biased (even if done by an organization who, if anything, leans right..and with a methodology for selecting the scientists surveyed that probably included more “skeptical” views that if they had restricted their sample to scientists actively working and publishing on global climate change). And, you can say that all 13 of national academies of science for the G8+5 nations, plus the AAAS, the APS, the AMS, and the AGU have all been taken over by a small band of AGW-believers that their membership somehow voted for even though the membership of all of those organizations feels differently.

It is impossible for me to argue against such logic. You are basically just not convinceable. So, why should I waste my time trying…And, furthermore, why should I let you dictate to me what I should do (e.g., about writing that article)? You won’t even stop posting misleading graphs after I call you out on them and explain very explicitly what is wrong with them.

I know, I know, the general public is too stupid to realize how serious the problem is and has been manipulated by all the Exxon money and Fox News.

I can’t stand Fox News, Exxon doesn’t pay me squat, but I’ve seen no evidence that CO2 is a problem, at all.

Actually, I think you are quoting me out-of-context. If you look at the full context of what I was saying when I used that word, I was talking about the fact that there are some people who, because of their political philosophies, find the policy implications particularly distasteful (and hence that it is not surprising that these people then convince themselves that the science isn’t correct so they have an easy way to argue against these policies).

So as long as we’re on the general subject of polls, how do you think the general public feels about how “distasteful” your version of climate policy would be?

I know, I know, the general public is too stupid to realize how serious the problem is and has been manipulated by all the Exxon money and Fox News.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

The poll wording is atrocious, no doubt at the instigation of the organization that paid for the original push poll.

To recap: the large majority of scientists do not understand the extent [if any -- the poll didn't ask that] of AGW. Is it 98%? 60%? 0.00031%? They don’t say. And most scientists freely admitted that they don’t even understand the evidence. Anthony has probably forgotten more about the climate than these folks ever learned.

You’ll have to come up with a lot better poll than that one.

Which reminds me, how’s that article coming along?

Scientists move from warmist to skeptic; never the other way round AFAIK.

Not according to the STATS poll carried out by Harris Interactive:

Changing scientific opinion

In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.

We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:

* In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.

* In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.

* The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991.