More on expert opinion and climate change

Further to my complaint that prominent greenhouse skeptic bloggers don't place enough emphasis on the question of qualifications and experience of the scientists they like to quote in support, here's a story of a recent survey designed to get a better idea of what those closest to the field think:

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Of course, skeptics will say "well, that's just climatologists defending their funding", but honestly, doesn't the greatest fame in science often come to those who do the groundbreaking work that shows the established beliefs of the majority in his or her field are wrong? Why wouldn't that work to encourage those in climatology to publish work that disproves AGW?

The other point is: why are oil geologists such a contrary bunch? What is it about looking for oil that makes them think they know better on climate change?