The Global Warming Debate

[refill]

Regarding biases, research funded by government grants is in a totally different category that research being funded by private industry. Let's not pretend that the pressures to have a certain outcome in those 2 scenarios would be the same. Companies can unilaterally pull the researching funding at any time if the "findings" are not to the company's liking. Government sponsored research has representatives from every side watching what happens, so no one group has control of funding, and pressuring for a particular outcome. An oil company's reason for being is to sell oil. A report saying that burning fossil fuels greatly increases global warming will negatively impact its bottom line--such research is inherently biased and cannot be taken without a large grain of salt. Government, at least in theory, is supposed to be for the benefit of the citizens, and government research is not subject to nearly as much pressure to produce a pre-determined result.

Regarding, "Climategate"...is this the one and only study on which the "alarmist" have made their argument? Like you said with your Hitler analogy, just because 1 bad actor says 1 + 1 = 2, doesn't mean it's not true. What about all the other research?

Finally, while data and analysis may be understandable by laypeople (non climate scientist), it would be more convincing to have climate scientists who have done the research say that the dangers of global warming (due to man) is over-blown and nothing to worry about. The climate scientist I have heard from are unequivocal that this is real.