human caused global warming is a low bar. That part (humans create CO2, CO2 creates some warming) is not debated. The debate is catastrophic change due to CO2, which requires runaway positive feedback loops beyond what CO2 alone can do.
A better anonymous scientist poll would be: Will human sources cause catastrophic warming or results by 2100?
I think the precisely better poll would be: "Will the consequences of continuing to emit CO2 at the current rate be greater than the cost of reaching net 0 by 2100?", but regardless of how weak the idea that humans aren't at least contributing to global warming that's exactly what the link verisimi posted seems to me to be doing. Yes it's true that we're very unlikely to tip Earth into becoming another venus, but tipping it into becoming another Pliocene on a short timetable would be pretty catastrophic.
I don't expect global warming to kill me or render the earth uninhabitable, but things aren't looking very sustainable right now and I think most scientists if polled would say we aren't currently doing enough to address the problem.
> Will the consequences of continuing to emit CO2 at the current rate be greater than the cost of reaching net 0 by 2100?
I think exactly zero humans are qualified to give expert opinion to that question right now. That would require both mastery of climatology, economics, and public policy. I think this makes a great question for a team, but not a great expert poll question.
BTW, does anyone even have an estimate of what net zero carbon by 2100 would cost?
A better anonymous scientist poll would be: Will human sources cause catastrophic warming or results by 2100?