Feeling a bit skeptical about the skeptics...
A while back I got directed to New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in [Anthropogenic Global Warming] which was reporting a number of studies suggesting relatively low support of the hypothesis that global warming is primarily human-induced amongst those who should be well informed. Taking a look at the studies, here's what I found.
Study #1. This where the 36% figure came from. Which specific set of engineers and geoscientists does it address?
... we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta.
So in other words this particular study is only considering engineers and geoscientists in a region where oil forms a major component of the economy. What fraction of the respondents are actually well-researched on climate change issues and the specific fraction that might be due to human causes (or, in scientistese, anthropogenic)? I'd imagine that the vast majority of those surveyed would be oil company employees, a group that would seem logically largely self-selecting for disbelief in human-caused global warmin.
Then there's Study #2. Here's a brief excerpt of that article (emphasis mine):
According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming. ... This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.
The American Meteorological Society has the following to say about climate change on its website:
Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. ... many of the observed changes ... are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases
So in other words the organization as a whole does seem to advocate very strongly for global warming, and considers it "clear from extensive scientific evidence" that it's human-induced. That said, the consequences of such a conclusion and the best step forward may be different. Often you can use the IPCC itself to support such assertations. In other words, there seems to be strong agreement on human-induced climate change but less so how to address it.
Then there's Study #3 where its claimed that amongst "meteorologists", e.g.,
Only 24 percent ... agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Ask the question "which meteorologists?" and what do you find?
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists.
I'd guess that the "television weather forecasters" aren't the most credible set of meteorologists out there - and this conclusion actually goes against the previously mentioned statement of the American Meteorological Society on climate change.
I'm guessing that " television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists" implies the TV reporters in question having done some sort of undergraduate science degree involving some general investigation of the topic but it's unclear if it implies anything additional. How many in this group are actually actively involved in investigating anything more than short-term weather reporting (rather than the long-term estimates climatology investigates)?