What bogus surveys? The numbers I cite are from either his letter or his data which I linked to in my first post.

Per Jan:"Cook looked at 12,000 abstracts." 
Per Cook:"examining 11,944 climate abstracts"

Per Jan:"So he emailed ALL of them" 
Per Cook:"We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2,142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors."

Note: The ones he emailed were already in the small "explicitly endorse AGW" category.

Per Cook:11,944 papers - 29,083 authors.

It is simply not true that 97% of the climate scientists world wide agree with AGW. It's bad enough that Cook misrepresents his data. Clearly you didn't read his letter and don't understand it or how he embellishes the importance of the much smaller sub-groups to get to the 97% fabrication.

Again, the 97%  catastrophic AGW consensus is a lie.