"Here is a paper discussing a survey conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences:"
That paper is not a survey. It's an analysis of expert credibility which then uses the chosen scientists most cited scientific literature to determine who is convinced by the evidence (CE) and unconvinced (UE) for ACC (which they define as the IPCC position).
"...97% of scientists identifying themselves as climate scientists support the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is affect the radiative balance of the planet."
Yes, that may be what their analysis concluded. But if you go to the NAS statement on climate change they state:
"Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts." http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Americas-Clim...
Questions about the action to address climate change do not appear in the NAS paper you are referring to and most likely do not appear in the vast majority of the scientific literature as well. You are comparing apples and oranges.
"Furthermore, the survey shows that of the 3% who do not agree with that contention, most have less expertise in the subject area that the 97% who agree."
Actually, that's the primary purpose of the NAS paper. What that has to do with formulating the NAS position on climate change is simply an aberration in your thinking process.
"...is this an example of a mental pathology or is it simply Dunning-Kruger Syndrome..."
Look in the mirror. It seems to me you need to label others with such "issues" to reconcile your own thoughts. That certainly doesn't indicate a high level of confidence.
What is a 'climate skeptic'? Someone who doesn't 'support the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is affect the radiative balance of the planet.' Why not call them anthropogenic CO2 skeptics?
'Do you think the climate skeptic in question would accept this paper as evidence that the position papers of organizations like AGU, the US NAS, or the RSL reflect the consensus scientific opinion?
No. People want to think for themselves, and don't what to follow IPCC pack mentality. People don't want a global carbon tax, and all the anti-capitalist bashing that come with it. People can see the true with out all the science double talk.
there is a difference between a skeptic and a denier. you are about to find out.
there are still people who think the moon landings were faked and millions who think the world was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. No amount of evidence will change some people's mind.
Consensus is not science, and science is not about consensus
Only if it agrees with their preconceptions
In discussing whether or not major scientific organizations such as the US NAS or the RSL take the views of their membership into account when developing position papers on climate change, a climate skeptic here made the statement:
"... I have yet to see any membership survey carried out by any science institution. So the six people that volunteered for the Climate Change Committee - at least two of which will be activists - just said what they wanted.
If I could be convinced that that was not the case then I might change my mind but right now it looks as if government has leaned on the institutions to make a statement so that is what they did, The only connection to science is in the name of the institution."
Here is a paper discussing a survey conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
showing 97% of scientists identifying themselves as climate scientists support the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is affect the radiative balance of the planet. Furthermore, the survey shows that of the 3% who do not agree with that contention, most have less expertise in the subject area that the 97% who agree.
Do you think the climate skeptic in question would accept this paper as evidence that the position papers of organizations like AGU, the US NAS, or the RSL reflect the consensus scientific opinion? A secondary question is why do climate skeptics prefer to believe the 3% who are less skilled than the 97% who are more knowledgeable, is this an example of a mental pathology or is it simply Dunning-Kruger Syndrome on the part of climate skeptics?
