It might help if you stated where your hometown is.

Not sure why it is important but on the Illinois/Wisconsin border. Ice core samples show pretty high levels of carbon dioxide coincidently.

Does a group of people have to be in concious conspiracy to inject bias from commonly held believes into results of a study?

What biases and false commonly held beliefs do you think that almost all of the climate scientists in the world are injecting into their research?
Why is it you feel that so few scientists are able to look dispassionately at evidence and based on that draw their own conclusions?
What Pavlovian stimulus do you feel all of these scientists are responding to? Could it be the common evidence they are all seeing?

Well, if you ahve the ability to act independantly, yet within a group toward a particular political goal, why is it you figure a conspiracy per se must be involved?

1. The actions you describe require massive unity of purpose among almost all scientists
2. The results of my research* dictate the conclusions of my research, not my political opinions.
3. Even if this was not the case, I am one person, not thousands spread across multiple governments and NGOs.
4. Virtually every bit of research published on the matter points in one direction. Absent the actual research meriting this treatment there are only a few options; one is conspiracy, another is staggering incompetence throughout the scientific community, and I suppose a third is that almost all scientists are deliberate frauds. To support your argument you must buy in to some formulation of one of those. Which is it?

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

So, the government deliberately and almost exclusively funds research to counter its own stated policy positions and to think otherwise is foolish?
I suppose censoring terms that might lend support to AGW theory in official documents and censure of those who use them also leads to near unanimity of research results in support of AGW.
It seems that in your view no matter the circumstance, other than under the protective halo of energy industry or right wing think tank grants, scientists will twist their results to support AGW.

To a large degree, the poliical views of many involved in reporting the reearch... as I've already indicated.

As I have indicated repeatedly those political views (enforcing socialism???) would have to be near universal at all government, NGO, and in all of the peer review panels of all the reputable science journals. It would also have to be strong enough to transcend all of their other marked disagreements. This seems even less likely than an actual conspiracy.

By the way, Speaking of political presre as regards the myth of Global Warming, I commend this to your reading.

Politicians quibbling over GW calculations in an NIE hardly qualifies as evidence that virtually all climate research is tainted. For most of the past decade congressional control has been in the hands of republicans actively opposed to the idea of AGW. The WH for most of the past decade has also been actively opposed to the idea of AGW. The levers of power and granting authority have been in the hands of people actively opposed to the concept of AGW yet this somehow leads to all of the political pressure on the research to run directly counter to that opinion and to think otherwise you deem foolish. That is mind boggling.

I still have not seen an explanation for why the ice disappeared from the area of my home town

It might help if you stated where your hometown is.

* not on climate change, but potentially affected by climate change

Without that conspiracy, how is it that virtually all the peer reviewed literature and all that I am aware of in the more prestigious journals points in the direction opposite what you contend is most in line with the evidence as you see it, unless you are wrong.

So, tell me; who is pulling your strings? Nobody?
Well, if you ahve the ability to act independantly, yet within a group toward a particular political goal, why is it you figure a conspiracy per se must be involved?

I resist the idea that virtually all of the research the federal government funds through grants would be politically motivated to go against the stated policies of those in charge.

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Incentives were/are clearly present for the research that would bolster your position but as yet it has not been publishable. Why is that?

To a large degree, the poliical views of many involved in reporting the reearch... as I've already indicated.

By the way, Speaking of political presre as regards the myth of Global Warming, I commend this to your reading.

Sorry, wrong answer, though I'm quite sure you'd like to see it so simple.

Without that conspiracy, how is it that virtually all the peer reviewed literature and all that I am aware of in the more prestigious journals points in the direction opposite what you contend is most in line with the evidence as you see it, unless you are wrong.
You have painted with a broad brush those who are convinced by the evidence that AGW does exist along with those who believe in the theory without understanding much as politically motivated hacks. You include in this the vast majority of scientists who you accuse of either intentionally supporting a fraudulent theory and so themselves perpetrating fraud or being clownishly incompetent in such a way that the results always point in the same direction.
The only honest brokers you see in this can't seem to get their research, which presumably better explains the evidence, published in any of the more reputable journals and most of them started or end up on the payroll of an energy industry group or a right wing think tank.

Do you really resist the idea that doling out tax money is done for political purposes?

I resist the idea that virtually all of the research the federal government funds through grants would be politically motivated to go against the stated policies of those in charge. Some perhaps, but all or nearly so is not at all likely.
When pressure is put on government researchers to not use language that might validate climate change, particularly AGW, in official documents and face sanction if they speak about it; I don't think that it makes most researchers more likely to direct their research to support that theory. Yet time and again their research does so. Are they all just thumbing their noses at the man and pushing the progressive agenda that drives us inexorably to socialism and the inevitable genocides that follow? Or are you perhaps wrong?
Incentives were/are clearly present for the research that would bolster your position but as yet it has not been publishable. Why is that? Did Bush appointees squash it?

Do you really think that leads to more federal grant money being focussed on proving the existence of AGW rather than the inverse or perhaps even honest people making honest choices among the best proposals?

Do you really resist the idea that doling out tax money is done for political purposes?

I refer you to congressional earmarks as an example of just how whacked that argument is.

Please provide a cite for the Lindzen article(s) you referenced.

It was sent me on amail echo at the time. If there's a copy online per se', I'm unaware of it.

You were railing on an intergovernmental and NGO conspiracy

Sorry, wrong answer, though I'm quite sure you'd like to see it so simple.

AGW is a fraud.

Best thing to do is only give credence to research which can be backed by falsifiable tests of predictions. Anything else is pure speculation.

Certainly. An abstract of one of the most recent can be found here and here is some information on the predictions of earlier models (subscription required).

the government? THat depends who is in power.

and who has been in power?

Some people working for the government? Without question.

You were railing on an intergovernmental and NGO conspiracy that apparently includes the majority of the World's and America's scientists to gain governmental power and impose socialism. Now you fall back to some in government may have agendas. This administration through appointment and policy has until quite recently been hostile to the idea AGW. Mention of AGW was suppressed in official documents. Do you really think that leads to more federal grant money being focussed on proving the existence of AGW rather than the inverse or perhaps even honest people making honest choices among the best proposals?

To argue, as you seem to be doing, that the US government through its research grants has been actively pushing for results that show AGW (particularly over the past 7 years) is laughable.

the government? THat depends who is in power. Some people working for the government? Without question.

Best thing to do is only give credence to research which can be backed by falsifiable tests of predictions. Anything else is pure speculation.

What is your answer to this? Should the waters have been kept polluted to keep the black fly population down?

A look at the history of the environmentalists, DDT and malaria is instructive, here.

My statement concerning money as a corrupter was in response to a claim against those who receive money from industry sources.

The source and any agenda it may have does matter. NASA, NSA, etc don't push for results that support a particular outcome. I don't think the same can be said of Exxon. This is by no means a definitive test of the rightness or wrongness of an argument.

If person chooses to discount others views as nonscientific or "flat earth" thinking then they have raised the bar enough that sources such wikipedia which are subject to manipulation and falsification are invalid.

Let me know which wiki claims you dispute and if it is material and I disagree I will make an effort to find other attribution.

In this case, Co2 is he smallest part of the equation, but it also, quite coincidentally, I'm sure, the only thing that can be blamed on man

Wrong and wrong. CO2 is far from the smallest factor in either atmospheric heat retention (though water vapor retains more heat) or climate change and man is also responsible for release of methane, sulfates, and other chemicals as well as deforestation that have climate implications.

As a matter of fact, yes... when it first came out.

Please provide a cite for the Lindzen article(s) you referenced. I have read some articles by him, but none have been convincing. That you have read and synthesized it indicates to me that M1EK is certainly capable of doing so. I have a bit of free time now and am willing to plow through it if I can get the pdf.

Even if true, that makes the arguments equally valid, and thereby the problem is not nearly as pronounced as ststed

Except that your formulation requires the distrust of virtually all national, international, and non-governmental science orgs (quite a large and diverse group who disagree on a number of other issues) whereas the other formulation requires distrust of fossil fuel company sponsored studies and CEI (a small and relatively uniform group).

If your claim that private money is the corruptor, here, is to be considered even remotely valid, then shouldn't the power of government and the money it provides, be consider at least it's equal?

Only if agendas and the push to come to the "right" conclusion are equal, which from what I have seen they are not.

What was amusing to me was that you cite Lindzen and take his word as gospel despite money coming from Exxon and discount virtually all other climate scientists because their research is largely paid by government and NGO grants. Some NGOs do have agendas and I would take Greenpeace or Sierra Club research with the same skepticism I take Exxon sponsored research with. To argue, as you seem to be doing, that the US government through its research grants has been actively pushing for results that show AGW (particularly over the past 7 years) is laughable.

No, Bithead, because the government money is spread around institutions all over the country, and is earmarked for academic research - not, as with Exxon's money, only research that proves a particular point.

You're making the assumption that government money is never doled on based on political motvations. A position so easily disproved, it hardly bears mention.