You snipped my reference to private sector geologists? Conceding the point?
FWIW I'm conducting my own non-scientific study now as I've emailed those same 2 questions to a few geologists I know. I'll post the results when I receive them.

>>>>This says nothing of the leading nature of the questions, the polling method nor the availability and/or accuracy of the respondents.
>>>
>>>The questions are shown in the article I cited. They don't look leading to me. The polling method is discussed (all those identified were invited to participate and participation was anonymous).
>>
>>"When compared with pre-1800s levels" - Arbitrary starting date chosen to guide the answer.
>
>If you're going to ask whether something has changed, you have to providing a starting point.

Why pre-1800s? Why not pre-1900s? Pre-2000s? Pre-Jurassic?

The reason pre-1800s is chosen is obvious in the context of the survey. They are guiding the answers towards a man-made influence.

>>"changing mean global temperatures" - Assumes mean global temps are changing
>
>IIRC, that was in the second question, after the first which asked whether they thought there was change.

Correct. Look how the question is written. It implies that mean global temps are changing and asks whether the respondent believes man is significantly contributing.

>>"significant contributing factor" - "Significant" in this question is arbitrary and open to the opinion of the responder.
>>
>>In addition, both questions ask "do you think" which allows opinion as opposed to scientific knowledge to guide the response.
>
>Since the survey group was people with scientific knowledge of the subject, I don't think that's particularly ambiguous. In addition, the point of the survey was to see what earth scientists _think_, not what their research has shown, but what their experience in the field has guided them to think.

As established in the paper "The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change" - emphasis mine.

What a scientist "feels" or "thinks" is irrelevant in the debate about AGW. I want provable repeatable scientific facts without prejudice and regardless of the scientific community's assumed collective opinion.

>Tamar

Aren't you even moderately amused by the notion of claiming consensus in science? Any science?