Keep dancing...
It does not require a “conspiracy” to have funding sources and other influences tilt results. It just requires natural selection.
Scientists that produce results confirming AGW are routinely rewarded, both with grants, publication, and approval. Scientists producing results in the other direction? See for yourself. What’s happening to Zwally right now? The AGW community is pouring down on this one study like antibodies on a germ.
AGAIN... the study is NOT "producing results in the other direction".
And it was the the misinformation industry that latched on to it:
OCT 31st:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/31/ooops-new-nasa-study-antarctica-isnt-losing-ice-mass-after-all
The day before your post on it here...
You say that you aren't claiming a conspiracy or conscious cheating on the part of the scientists... you just propose that they are all so self interested and greedy that they somehow -maybe even unconsciously-manipulate data and conclusions in a way that is consistent among all the scientists and larger scientific organizations.
Do you REALLY believe that? Do you think that is even remotely possible? Do you remember the political price these scientists paid when they started reporting on this? The political pressure and the witch hunt hearings? EVEN THIS YEAR the GOP wanted to slash Earth Sciences funding because they didn’t like the science it produces.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews
This has not been about the self-interest of the scientists.
I am not sure what is more insulting- 1) the scientists are all part of an evil conspiracy, or 2) They are so self-interested that they will all unconsciously manipulate the data and conclusions to arrive at the same conclusion. ….
You do realize that scientists ARE scientists because they enjoy learning something NEW and unexpected, right? Something that overturns conventional thought… you are asserting that climate scientists are unanimously behaving in a non-scientific way.
I make the point yet again that you have no trouble dismissing any science even remotely funded by industry as deliberate lies. That “conspiracy” seems plausible enough to you.
WHAT science did I dismiss? I simply pointed out that the study you threw out says nothing about the fact of global warming. You have not presented any science other than that.
The funding comparison chart I posted in the “following the money” thread is what it is. Sorry.
The presentation that you cherrypicked the slide from refutes your claim that the Global Warming money dwarfs the spending on the other side…