Scientific American readers condemn climate hustlers

Here's the loaded question that the AGW scam-supporting Scientific American asked its readers, plainly expecting something other than it got, to wit the following overwhelming endorsement of Judith Curry and her brave climate skepticism.

• Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums? - 91% say yes
• Judith Curry is? - 19% had never heard of her, 69% said she was a peacemaker
• What is causing climate change? - 76% said natural causes
• The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is - 81% said "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda".
• What should we do about climate change? - 65% said "Nothing, we are powerless to stop it".
• Which policy options do you support? - 65% said "keeping science out of the political process".

Was it not just a year ago that the eek!-o-freaks were screaming about the "scientific consensus" in favour of world-girdling, drastic action to "save the planet"?