Divergence (1)

Nice intro to stats 101, but it is far from conclusive. I did a quick scan of some science journals on the web. The value applied to “significant” and or “significantly” seemed range widely, see links:
http://www.now.org/issues/diverse/diversity_report.pdf
“ shows that females and minorities are significantly underrepresented …the percentage of women among full professors
ranges from 3% to 15%.”
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/05/19/acute.respiratory.disease.poses.significantly.greater.risk.black.americans
"Earlier studies have indicated that black Americans have almost double the risk of developing sepsis, compared to whites.”

So the practice is a little at odds with the thoery --and we still don’t know what the respondents to your survey had in mind.
(what probably is-- significant-- is your eagerness to accept the result without knowing the background!)

But over to your other points:
1--“why would the Russians, Indians, Chinese, etc. buy into it”
When you use the expression “buy into it”, I presume you mean in the same way an audience could be said to be buying into a boxing match by cheering and clapping from the sidelines -- because, it sure as hell doesn’t mean getting into the ring i.e. taking on board all that the USA is required to do under the various AGW protocols .

The above-mentioned endorsement of AGW –if that is indeed what they’ve done (?) -- might just have something to do with the fact that under existing AGW protocols the bulk of the costs will be borne by the USA--and the above ( & most other countries ) stand to do very well from it, by either:
i) Picking up the (polluting) industries that flee the tougher US controls, or by
ii) Receiving reparations for AGW damages –again at the expense of the US.

Divergence (2)

2--“ the idea that experienced scientists …”
3----“Is it legitimate to refuse to believe the majority of experts…”
(You certainly seem to have a regard, a reverence almost , for authority)

But I don’t recall any on this side of the house --denying experts or anyone else-- the right to propose .It is the AGW proponents who are expressing --indignation -- that others (some of whom are also experts) dare to point out inconsistencies in their propositions.

And yes, there is a definite quasi-religious flavour to it all :
--The standard rebuke for a AGW challenger is ‘denialist’ [that plays on holocaust associations —and is not far removed from declaring someone a “heretic”]
--Then we are told AGW has all been settled – there is no room for any more doubts/debate [ ala “the pope has spoken”]
--And Peter Garret is telling us about 30 metre sea rises, super storms & world famine [straight out of the book Revelations]
--And you even have --TV evangelists – e.g. Al Gore .

Real science ( unlike quasi-religious movements) provides a license to doubt, to question, even the most established/popular positions.

Horus,

The science is never settled, as we can only talk about probabilities. Even James Hansen, whom you would consider one of the more extreme AGW proponents, has put his confidence level at 99%, i.e. he admits that there is a 1% chance he is wrong and that the apparent evidence for AGW is due to chance. (This is something different from the examples you have quoted.) The question is not about absolute truth, but whether the risk is great enough to justify taking action. If there is a chance of devastating consequences, sometimes action is justified even for a very low probability event, as with the search for killer asteroids.

"Denialist" has more to due with Kubler-Ross and the stages of dying than the Holocaust. It is like the case where parents are told that their child has cancer. Instead of maybe getting a second opinion and taking the recommended action, they go to doctor after doctor until they find one who will tell them what they want to hear, that their child only has a minor problem. People can be so emotionally committed to an ideology that it interferes with processing information from the real world, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Just think of the doctrinaire Communists on this forum or Runner's denial of evolution. You have been (quite rightly) merciless about this when it comes to the open borders crowd.