But I hope you can see that others, myself included, may not see this process as being as pervasive, or as ruthlessly enforced, as you do. I could concede that perhaps a department head or journal editor might lean on his subordinates to tow the line, but I would also expect that it would happen on both sides of the issue.

If your really believe this kind of process does play a significant role in the scientific debate, and that the silent pressure is so great that it forces censorship, self- or otherwise, or if it influences research dollars in such a way that investigators have to modify their conclusions to secure funding, then I suppose the burden of proof is on you. It's one thing to say this happens in academia and in the research labs, anyone who's worked in those environments does not need to be reminded that office politics goes with the job. But to assert that it can influence an entire profession's direction and consensus on an issue this critical is a pretty tall order. Bad research is going to attract criticism, even if your critic believes in what you are doing. He makes his reputation by proving you mistaken, not proving you wrong.

The Frontline documentary "Heat", available through the PBS website, makes precisely this assertion about scientific research under White House control, but supporting the anti-AGW agenda instead. But even in this highly controlled and motivated environment it was not particularly effective, and as the documentary shows, it left a trail a mile wide. You might find it worthwhile to take a couple of hours off to watch this on the web. It might give you some ideas of how the other side manages to do this, without Presidential coercion.

You may recall, I used to do this kind of work, I knew how my side operated, and how our opposition countered us. Fortunately, in those days it was not an ideological issue, the way it became later.