Re: “why don't independently funded researchers get results that completely overturn climatology?” Quite a few non-government researchers have debunked many of their claims already. Government-funded scientists are continuing to churn out their “findings”, so it’s probably not possible to completely overturn them while this is going on. It’s a work in progress.

I’m as allergic to conspiracy theories as you are, but this is not a conspiracy, it’s totally out in the open. Obama and his minions, such as the Hollywood star I mentioned above, are out to publicly discredit and marginalize anyone who dares to challenge what they refer to as “settled science”. The opinions of Hollywood stars may be unimportant to us, but they become important when such stars ally themselves with politicians to shape public opinion on scientific matters.

And there’s no question that Obama has “great powers,” as will his successor.

CG: “If scientific institutions suppress the truth, wouldn't they suppress AGW?"
CBJ: You can’t lump government-funded science in with the rest of it and call them “scientific institutions”.
CG: Right, but my question why don't independently funded researchers get results that completely overturn climatology? Only a few people benefit from AGW, but it's a cost to everyone else. If there were a conspiracy, you'd think they'd expose it.

To me this sounds like all conspiracy theories: the conspirators take on great powers, whatever powers are needed for their role in the supposed conspiracy.

"Here’s an example, courtesy of a climate change expert (oops, I mean a Hollywood star) "
What Hollywood stars think is unrelated and not important to me.

"Global Warming alarmism is a perfect vehicle to increase government control over every person on the planet."
I used to think was absurd until I read the first few chapters of Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything, which makes this case. It's rare I can't get through a book. I scanned ahead and saw more of the same, so I gave up. There are definitely people eager to take political advantage of every problem or crisis.

20%?
I would have put that figure as being high. However, I'll defer to your superior knowledge, even though it depresses me. That means that there are 70 million criminals out there in the USA. Of course, white collar crime unless it is Madoff sized, is usually quite glossed over. Hopefully, the murderers and rapists are a fraction of that 20%.

Re: “If scientific institutions suppress the truth, wouldn't they suppress AGW?” You can’t lump government-funded science in with the rest of it and call them “scientific institutions”. That’s like lumping ISIS fighters in with Christian missionaries and calling them “religious activists”. Governments control the playing field, and they have unique incentives and abilities to increase their power. To the extent they control scientific research, they will direct it towards those ends, and they are not above cheating and suppressing dissent to do so. Here’s an example, courtesy of a climate change expert (oops, I mean a Hollywood star) who has just met with the man who has the single greatest influence over U.S. government science funding:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/05...

Global Warming alarmism is a perfect vehicle to increase government control over every person on the planet.

I may look into that one. Thanks Mike.

"Much commercial scientific research centers on developing new products and improving existing products. The incentives are huge for such research to be accurate and unbiased."
The incentive is to say the new products safe and effective. So if scientific institutions were corrupt, I'd wonder if big pharma is suppressing the benefits of homeopathy, if they're hiding the risks of vaccination to sell vaccines, if Monsanto is paying scientists to say GMOs are safe. (I don't suspect any of those things. I accept the mainstream scientific answers until new evidence appears.)

The thing that I don't get about the corrupt science claim with regard to AGW is wouldn't the bias run the other way? The whole world economy runs on energy. We get most of it from burning fuel from the ground, i.e. CxHy + O2 --> CO2 + H2O + energy. It will be costly to switch to alternatives and to deal with the affects of climate change. From the powerful monied interests to anyone who likes having cheap products from around the world, nearly everyone wishes burning hydrocarbons had no ill effects on the environment. If scientific institutions suppress the truth, wouldn't they suppress AGW?

What I am saying is:

(1) Verify, then trust.

(2) I think your claim that “most scientific questions have an answer that people funding the study want to be true” is incorrect. Broad areas of scientific research are non-commercial and non-political, such as fundamental physics and astronomy. Much commercial scientific research centers on developing new products and improving existing products. The incentives are huge for such research to be accurate and unbiased.

(3) I did not say “we cannot trust climate science because the people funding it have a desired answer and an agenda.” I do say that we cannot trust certain climate scientists without extensive verification of their work, because they are funded by power-hungry governments with their thumbs on the scales, and because some of them seem to think that cheating and suppressing undesired findings are acceptable components of the scientific method.

"I honestly don’t know how you could draw such a conclusion from my post. "
I think I do not understand what you're saying. I thought you were saying we cannot trust climate science because the people funding it have a desired answer and an agenda.

My claim is that most scientific questions have an answer that people funding the study want to be true. If we cannot trust any scientific inquiry where people have their foibles, agendas, and desired outcomes, then we cannot trust any science, which I loosely state as "we can't know anything."

"if we find flaws, evaluate new theories."
Yes, exactly. That's a strength of science. We actually want to find anomalies that change our understanding.

At 64 an amazing amount of what we "knew" in high school is no longer considered true. Anyone who has looked into the history of science can see a process of coming to a consensus, then someone coming up with a new idea and after a long battle arriving at a new consensus.

Science should not be confused with knowing things. Science is a process that allows us to challenge what we think we know and, if we find flaws, evaluate new theories.

Perhaps. I went looking because three things caught my attention:

1. This is the hottest it's ever been in recorded history. I am aware of the age of Viking exploration when Greenland could grow crops. Clearly this isn't true.

2. The science is settled -- the science is never settled. Proper science requires skepticism

3. Calling people who disbelieved "deniers" -- clearly triggering Godwin's law.

I then started looking more closely.

And yet, despite their lack of funding, they got through to you. Millions of other people also question Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Have you read The Logical Leap by David Harriman. It is widely considered among Objectivists to be a new statement of what "induction" really is. One event is enough if you have a correct understanding.

Well, from my studies in criminology (BS 2008. MA 2010), the numbers are about 20%. Any police chief will tell you that 80% of your problems come from 20% of the address in every neighborhood. The white collar guy in suburbia does not rob the liquor store; he commits other crimes. His son, however, does, indeed, commit the same crimes as inner city kids. I have a post on my blog, "Twenty Percent of Scientists are Crooks" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

I also have a website (http://csiflint2011.blogspot.com/) that I built for middle school science teachers based on a talk that I gave at a "Super Science Friday" at the University of Michigan (Flint). I told the kids that if they like science and want to go into criminal investigation, they should consider careers with offices of research integrity at universities or with the federal government.

Interesting statement. I get a kick out of the ole, "Oh, that's just correlation" when the positives are not fitting the agenda. That comes up a lot. I always ask where one draws the line on that. Imagine seeing a study where there is only one element with "correlation" - only one. Then, seeing the study terminated early and stuck on a shelf with a, "Oh...must have been correlation." I have actually been in a study where they said, "Since correlation was not 100% there is no conclusion." They wanted to say that 100% correlation was required for a conclusion in a biological study. Science is dead.

I have a little graphic description of the scientific method up at my desk. I love it because when you look at it you can clearly see that we don't follow it anymore.

They failed to accurately predict Hurricane Matthew and where it would go and exactly how strong it would remain at any given moment, yet we are supposed to believe government scientists can predict with fractions of degrees where the earth will be in the next 100 years and whether the seas will rise and by how much. Global warming started over 10,000 years ago when ice sheets covering Manhattan island began retreating. Wonder what humans were doing at that time to start it?

The author lost me at the use of the term "science denialists." Scientific findings and theories are fluid, subject to change with new data. They are not cast in stone by consensus. The skeptics are the ones loyal to science, not the climate change hysterics.

It amuses me how, in the face of data confirming no appreciable rise in planetary temperature in nearly 20 years, the climate change fanatics continue to espouse climatery "armageddon." The fact that the polar ice hasn't disappeared (and in fact seems to be returning to levels well above the low of 2012) doesn't seem to faze them.

What the author doesn't address is that good data can be meaningless if other factors aren't taken into account. Coffee drinkers were told they were doomed to heart disease for decades, until a diligent researcher realized the studies correlating coffee drinking with heart disorders did not include information of patient weight, smoking, alcohol abuse, or drug use. The data was good, but irrelevant due to exclusion.

The population studied can be inappropriate. The famous "food pyramid" that was thrust upon us for decades that espoused the righteousness of carbohydrates and the evil of fat is one such example. What is not well known is that the intent of the study leading to the pyramid was to correlate the eating habits with extremely healthy people, under the assumption that their health was largely an effect of their eating habits. Since the study was about healthy people, the researchers used Olympic athletes as their example. The problem with that is that those athletes' metabolisms operate at a very high rate, so that their caloric resting needs are far greater than a normal person doing strenuous exercise. Since carbohydrates provide more readily available energy, conditioned athletes incorporate a significant carbohydrate intake, which in a normal person, becomes an energy reserve of fat. Good study, good data, wrong population.

This is the age of Pseudo-Science. You can lump Climate Change with Ancient Aliens. Propaganda is king in these pseudo endeavors. As stated in the comments, more money is poured into them than into actual science. Then the Fed Gov't gets involved in leveling fines on oil companies that go against Climate Change.
I'm sure that the IRS investigates organizations and companies that speaks contrary to the Prez's political correctness. There is also lobbyists and PAC's that coddle to the Fed propaganda to spread their on anti-Democratic Republic ideas. As in Atlas Shrugged, moochers one & all! My fear is that if Hillary(heaven forbid) gets elected Pseudo-Intellectualism will rule the day.

Here's more from NewsBud & Sibel Edmonds [video]...
* https://youtu.be/QNAPeEDujwE

There are so many persons striving to get their PhD.or to publish or perish to get their tenure, or merely to get money. As with Washington, it always boils down to power and wealth. "Making it happen" is a cottage industry for big brains in order for them to survive. Places of learning are just as full of hustlers as big corporations. What is doubly sad is once a professor (Hustler) comes to support a theory, he/she does his/her best to indoctrinate their students.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality. In the university and in certain workplaces, Reality Be Damned!

Tell the lie often enough with enough vehemence and they will believe it, no matter how ridiculous. Example, Obama and Hillary are good for America.

Makes me sick to type that even as an example of a lie.

How does false information becomes "fact"?
In this world?
Me dino likes to keep my thinking simple.
False information becomes "fact" when you say and write it enough times.
If you have power, you reward those who agree and punish those who do not.
Just ask O the Great and Powerful.
Adolf Hitler is dead, you see . . .

My first question, be it a drug study or a climate studyy: who funded it, what self-interest is at work? If global warming, where are the test units and what affects them? If Hillary says she will make criminal opposition to s viewpoint, I ask why are you afraid of open scientific debate? Fact don't exist in science, they change as knowledge grows. If the UN says they no longer care if global warming is true, as long as people think it is, and it allow them to control them - something is off. Logic is the way to go, get rid of bad premises, and follow the money.

That summation has been most observable lately...add a soft snicker to that thought.

"P-hacking" is the quest to achieve a low p-value <0.05 and thereby claim valid results.

https://theconversation.com/one-reaso...