Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many. Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not. Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate. For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months. Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency) This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive. The entire process has been corrupted for decades.
As for academic societies - I know well how those work too. The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members. It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.
Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.
Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity. Currently this is not happening.
Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university. It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads. And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions. Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing. And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated. I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.
PS - the earth keeps on cooling.
I would rather it warm up a bit....