There are two surveys, one of Federal climate scientists, and one of NCAR scientists. The response to the first question from the Federal group was 33 percent "perceived," 21 percent "experienced," and 54 percent "neither." I assume the more than 100 addition is due to the "select all that apply" instruction.

From the NCAR group (a smaller sample), the response was 28 percent "perceived," 7 percent "experienced," and 66 percent "neither."

I assume the numbers in the summary combine these two, but I'm too lazy to do the math. I have no idea what the term "perceived" entails.

But that aside, you are being manipulated to some degree. Both of these organizations, while not hacks by any means, have a history of agenda politics.

Look at that executive summary again. Carefully. Look at the numbers.

"Nearly half...two in five...more than one-third...one quarter...nearly half..." To get any numbers over half, the writers had to combine all the categories, and even then, they only get 58 percent. Try and imagine how these paragraphs could all have been written if the objective of the writers was to show that political pressure was NOT a big issue.

Look at the chart on page 21. Ever see a chart like that with the X-axis topping out at 50 percent? What perceptions are they trying to nudge? There are other examples.

You could make a very good case that ANY interference in this sort of thing is too much, but I have no idea where someone got the ridiculous idea that they could tap the government for research funds and not get politics wound up into it somewhere. If Al Gore were president, the pressure would all be in the other direction, but pressure there would be.

Are you sure my ears are the ones tightly closed? I think I listed at one time the various things the global warming supporters have in common with a typical dogma. While I agree that the earth is generally warming, I have come to somewhat different conclusions on causes and effects based on what I have read.