I'd respectfully suggest that the intensity with which you're trying to discredit this report is somewhat at odds with your claim to scientific objectivity when it comes to politics. Some of your spin is heavier than the spin you claim to find there. An example:

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?

Well, to answer your question, yes, as a matter of fact. Scaling the data to fit in the available area isn't just routine, it's expected and considered good practice. You surely know that.

"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.

OK, let's do that. "Experienced" + "perceived" is simply (1 - "neither"). A few rewrites using the inverse number:

Slightly more than half of all respondents (54 percent of all respondents to the question) reported that they had not perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming,” or other similar terms from a variety of communications.

Almost three in five (57 percent) reported that they had not perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

Somewhat fewer than two-thirds (63 percent) reported that they had not perceived or personally experienced statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented scientists’ findings.

Three's enough, because it's getting awfully tedious.

So, those are the words "corrected" according to your suggestions. Given that the topic of the report is political interference with science, and I'm confident that you hold the integrity and independence of science to be as sacred as the rest of us, tell me, does phrasing it that way seem to you to be more or less honest? Which phrasing is true to the topic, and which phrasing betrays it?

To paraphrase Professor Yeti:

So it is or it is not a problem that between only 93% to 79% of scientists have not reported interference from the system in their work or communication of their work? Are those number not shamefully low? Should we not demand 100%?