What should bother you is that a scientist omitted scientific data to come to a conclusion.

The Marshall Institute didn’t perform and compile their own scientific study, they only used data that was already performed by leading institutes that the scientist in question used and found that some scientist cherry picked and misused the same data to come to their conclusions. This should be alarming to you or anybody.

Thank goodness scientist around the world are trying to get a grip on the misconduct of scientific research. It is real and you should be concerned.
Here is a link on The European Science Foundation efforts to combat the problem.

The European Science Foundation just wrapped up the first World Conference on Research Integrity. Held in Lisbon, this historic three-day conference drew hundreds of scientists to address what they call the "open sore" of science -- the falsification or misrepresentation of research data. The conference named two events from recent climate research: NASA's "Y2K" bug (first reported here at DailyTech) and a second incident with a much larger potential impact.

As far as I know Exxon and the petroleum industry is not funding The European Science Foundation and they are discussing scientific misuse of data regarding the IPPC’s 4th Assessment report on global warming. The faults in data used by the IPPC make their claims worthless, not to mention a scam on science and the human race.

I for one would like to know what is really going on with human input to global warming and so far we are being presented with shady reports. It is pretty alarming that all the global warming reports are flawed in one way or the other, making me come to the conclusion that something is terrible wrong with the IPPC’s claims.

Now you want to talk about people being funded by groups trying to change policy try reading about NASA scientist James Hansen who deliberately misused, left out and tweaked data to come to a conclusion he was looking for.

But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

What bothers you more?

The source for finding the flaws in scientific reports or the actual flaws?