We went through a whole thread on possible biases in "Science" and "Nature," and complaints by some scientists that some decisions on publishing had political ramifications. I can't find it right now, and you're welcome to dig it up.

To be fair, by "politics" it might be more accurate to say we're talking about "right thinking" and the peer pressure of a "consensus" rather than the kind of left-right politics we usually mean. In corporations, or places like NASA, it's often expressed in a "not invented here" syndrome. You've been in science long enough to know that scientists are as human as anyone else, and the status quo is not easily flaunted.

The FACT is there really isnt any viable evidence that global warming isnt real, that it isnt caused by human activities, and that it isnt going to cause REAL problems...

Even working around the burden of proof issues this statement suggests, each of these are separate issues, and the tendency to assume that ALL of these statements have been equally nailed to the wall is one of the things that makes it difficult to discuss.

That temperatures have been going up in the last century or so is clear.

That temperature and CO2 levels are related is clear from ice core records going back tens of thousands of years. Which is cause and which is effect is still not clear to me.

That elevated CO2 levels are dangerous to life is ridiculous, considering that levels were five or more times higher in distant eras and somehow life thrived.

That changes in lifestyle and food production might be issues of a warmer planet is probable. There will be good news, and bad news.

That most climate scientists are not political shills is a given. However, that this issue is being exploited by those (mostly outside the world of science) who are hostile to technologicial civilization, the West, and capitalism, is obvious.