I am stating that you don't know their position and cannot. All you can conclude is 300 or so scientists support that position. You also failed to realize that support of this position is on a widely varying scale and the alarmist position is not even in the majority of your random survey.
And according to the polls taken before last year's presidential election, only a few thousand people were planning on voting for Obama.
I can be reasonably confident because:
1) Every relevant scientific society in the world has taken the same position;
2) As far as I know, there have not been significant numbers of resignations or protests because of the AGU's stated position;
3) There are a number of surveys of climate scientists, all of which show that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in AGW (even the one conducted by Roger Pielke, Sr.);
4) There are many more papers published in refereed journals that support AGW than that cast doubt on AGW;
5) I have friends that work in the field, from whom I can get a sense of what the general attitude of climate scientists is;
6) I have even attended a couple of AGU conferences, each of which had over 11,000 attendees, and was able to see and hear for myself what the prevailing opinion was (I even attended a talk by Prof. Gray - though it didn't have anything to do with climate change).
I am saying that no poll or vote was done so no conclusions can be drawn as such. Why don't you present some evidence to support your implications. You are attempting to imply that they do. I asked for proof, you failed to provide it.
See above.
Why don't you show me they do. No you are the one making the assertion that position statements by a handful of council members represents the opinion of the societies thousands of members. You have provided zero evidence for this claim. I have no idea what the position is because no vote or poll was taken. See alarmists like to pretend that the position statement = 50000 scientists support AGW when no such thing is proven. You could have a majority of 25001 scientists in support of AGW and 24999 opposed and still have a majority but that is hardly compelling. Sorry for not having your faith, I need evidence.
You don't need evidence. You don't want evidence. You just want excuses to rationalize your beliefs.
Some of it has to do with problems in the temperature record and it is not warming in Antarctica. You seem to be suggesting evidence of regional warming and not "global warming".
Whether or not it is warming in Antarctica is open to debate. It is known that the ice mass balance is decreasing. Antarctica is an anomaly because of the ozone hole, which reduces the heat emitted downward from the stratosphere, and the circumpolar vortex, which partially isolates the Antarctic atmosphere from the rest of the world.
As for the temperature record, no one has shown that there are any systematic biases in it.
?
Who am I kidding! These guys will be claiming the warming stopped well after Tamino's bet is settled and won.