>>Full disclosure: this was a self-selecting study. Invitations weresent to 10,000+ identified Earth scientists (essentially, all the Earth Scientists in the US); about 30% chose to participate. It was done in a way that kept participants anonymous, so no issues with facing embarrassment.
>>
>>The real issue is that providing both sides of an issue has been so beaten into the media that they've presented this topic as if there is real scientific disagreement, which is not the case.
>
>
>What a load of crap. How can 30% of any population be proof that the science is objective?

It's my understanding 30% response on this kind of survey is quite good.

More importantly, unless there's some reason to believe the respondents were different than the group as a whole, 30% is plenty to get significant results. This Wikipedia article points to studies on response rate and accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_rate

>There is an agenda and a hidden motive for Global Warming to be accepted. I believe it is natural earth cycles as do a majority of scientists that actually are engaged in "earth science" or oceanographics or weather.
>

This study makes it clear that, in fact, the majority of scientists doing Earth Science do not think it's only natural earth cycles.

Tamar