Thanks KenH for a wonderfully entertaining PDF.
I don't believe I have ever seen a more egregious example of selective spin.
First we are told over 10,000 scientists were invited to poll, of which only 3,146 responded; fair enough. There are one or two sciences that don't have a great deal to do with climate studies; maybe even around 70%, perhaps?
Then we are told out of those 3,146 scientists who bothered to respond,
“90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."
IOW, out of all the scientists who responded, (3,146) 90% agreed that the Earth is getting warmer, and 82% believe that humans share some measure of responsibility.
But wait! Only 77 out of the 3,146 could be considered climate specialists, and of these 75 believed in AGW, or 97% of the climate 'specialists'.
But this is where it really gets precious.
“It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.”
Huh?
All This figure indicates is that out of all scientists who responded, 2.38% were climate 'specialists'. It has no bearing on their beliefs; those have already been given.
“When the figure of 75 believers is
set against that number, we get a mere 0.73%
of the scientists they contacted who agreed
with their loaded questions.”
Untrue. We have already been given the stats for the 3,146; they were 90% and 82%, remember?
“However a headline of “0.73% of CLIMATE scientists think that humans are affecting the climate doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?”
Well no, especially when it's completely untrue.
In the space of 2 paragraphs, all 3,146 scientists become Climate scientists, but only the 75 (out of 77) specialists get to have their vote counted.
But it's only the 'ratbag left' who ever fudge the numbers, eh?

Thanks for the reminder Grim,

about KenH "coincidentally" trolling the 'dumb-down' antics of Andrew Bolt's (denialist) blog and his subsequent linking to the neo-con think-tank of Christopher Monckton (the 'Lord') and Dennis Ambler's 'Science & Public Policy Institute'.

Here's another take on Ambler's rambles:

http://davec.org/tag/dennis-ambler/

Pretty much sums-up and thumbs-up what you've been saying, eh.

Using KenH's words: "Shows how uncritical the 'sceptics' are and how desperate they are to find any sort of grubby statistic to support their AGW (anti-global warming) conspiracy theory."

You are right John, it is not a Left/Right issue - it's a global issue.

Michael Rowan: " If this is so, then as I have recently detailed there is a very large and diverse group of conspirators among scientists and other experts: the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and its equivalent organisations in the US and the UK, the CSIRO, the IPCC, the members of the various recent enquires into the soundness of climate science, and the peak scientific organisations in Australia, the UK and the US, not to mention the Encyclopaedia Britannica. "

The IPCC is the ringleader of this warmist lot. It was set up to find scientific proof for AGW, but after 20 years of searching has failed to come up with any convincing scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global warming. Nevertheless, the IPCC has been very effective in conning the media, parliamentarians and others with alarmist propaganda.

So as to attract ongoing research funding, the CSIRO and the Australian Government's scientific advisers are aligned with the IPCC.

The folly of the UK BOM's forecasts for the 2010-11 Northern winter is well documented.

The Australian BOM's forecast for the 2010 Spring was nothing to be proud of -- see
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/could-the-australian-bom-get-it-more-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-157862

If Michael Rowan and others of his ilk are so convinced about AGW, they should support the holding of a Royal Commission into the veracity of the climate science, so as to resolve whether the conspiracy exists.

Both sides don't have a clue and you all know it. Yes..some are going to take advantage of the matter.....well no big surprise on that one. Your all look at each other to who has the creditability and for what reasons....well....when money is concerned with who rollies the biggest dice......human-nature comes into play every time.

This debate is not about finding the true causes of what man-kind is facing...is about you and what it means to you in your short lives.

http://tinyurl.com/2bws4hh

Co2 is a real threat....because we cant breath it. Your not going to stop your fossil fuel addiction.....your not going to stop growing......your not going to stop eating this planet alive.....so why pretend that you care, its not in your life-time, is it?

Humans have just sped up the processes of a natural/man-made event....which now the run-way train has no breaks for.

Enjoy your extinction......there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Because you cant fix it. Human grow/trees gone=wheres the 02 going to come from in the future/=oceans dieing=pollution growth= all the information is right in front of you all.....but you cant see:)

While humans will not learn....pointless on all other fronts.

BLUE

"Nevertheless, the IPCC has been very effective in conning the media, parliamentarians and others with alarmist propaganda."
Apparently not. If we go back to that very entertaining PDF KenH was kind enough to direct us to and check the summary, we find that while 90% of all scientists polled believed the Earth was getting warmer, and 82% believed Humankind shared some culpability, and 97% of climate specialists believed in AGW, a poll of laypeople showed only 58% believed in AGW.
The summary supplied ended with this paragraph:
"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who under-
stand the nuances and scientific basis
of long-­ term climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."