Not surprised that you are trying to co-opt a variety of views to justify your anti-science intransigence.What about the respondents who said they didn't know or that the amount is unknown, which also align with my views. The total adds up to 25%.
As for why I believe what I believe, it's because I have looked at the data.
Which view represents you?
AGW is significant but less than 50% of the cause?
AGW occurs but is insignificant? (<25%)
AGW's impact is unknown?
The third can't be combined with the first 2. The first two are definite conclusions that clearly show AGW has an impact. The third is ambiguous (and can just as easily be combined with the 66%).
If you think the impact of AGW is unknown you are only supported by 10% of the scientific community. If you think that AGW occurs but contributes < half of climate change then you agree with only 12% of scientists.
Of course you never have actually stated a scientific thesis but instead you merely follow conspiracy theorist tactics and try to poke holes.
p.s. It is also interesting in the pbl survey that the more expertise respondents have in the field, the more confident they are about the impact of human produced CO2. Also the people who think that AGW is not the major factor are far less confident in their views.