Statements about how many scientists believe any thing, from phrenology to aether to gravity, is an interesting observation about the current opinions and politics of those who practice science. It is not science itself.
It may be "interesting" that one guy in Alabama disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, but it's certainly no more interesting than the members of the flat earth society, or my great uncle Fred, who happens to think that radio waves cause cancer.
There are admittedly some real cranks among the global warming skeptics, but I thought the arguments discussed in this article were intelligent, rational, and well-spoken.
1) Overzealous people have exaggerated/confused global warming with recent local weather phenomena, and this is wrong.
2) Predicting climate change is hard and our climate models are inaccurate.
3) Given the choice between reducing carbon emissions, and feeding starving children, we should favor feeding starving children.
Arguments 1 is a straw man -- true, but irrelevant to the question of whether global warming is real and caused by humans.
Argument 2 is also true, but is a red herring -- it fails to address the volumes of science that would suggest that, despite the difficulty of the problem, we have good reason to believe that there is a problem.
Argument 3 relies on a false dichotomy -- there isn't a clear and necessary relationship between increased spending on climate change, and decreased spending on (say) HIV vaccines or mosquito nets or starving children.
Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities"
I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.
I'm sorry if you were confused by my use of rhetoric. However, it gave you a chance to lecture me on the properties of science ("models and experiments"), so perhaps it wasn't time wasted?