(Aside - what James said.)
So Eos published a summary of two climate questions in an opinion poll, and it's the second question that's received the most attention: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? They found 97% of climatologists actively publishing on climate (75 of 77 responding) said "yes," with the percentages decreasing as one moves away from direct knowledge of climate science. No big surprise there, along with Tim's speculation that the two dissenters are Spencer and Lindzen.
But 10% of Earth scientists disagreed with this question: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Here's my follow-up question - who the hell are these 10%? I'm sure less than 10% of the genuine climate skeptics would say that, and I doubt even 10% of lying denialists (Milloy, Singer etc.) would make the claim.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of answers by profession, showing the level of ignorance about a basic climate fact by each category of Earth scientist.
(Bonus climate blogging - Greenfyre's post on debating climate, with my gentle disagreement in the comments)
(Second bonus - reducing transit funding in the stimulus is insane, especially when you don't even need to construct transit but just stop planned cutbacks.)