At this point, in terms of reputation and access to government funds, it's practically a professional death sentence to speak out against the prevailing view. You can see for yourself how scientists have been treated, here and elsewhere, who don't toe the line. I listed examples once.

I assume you read pwokenyaw's link. Is there any point where the facts are actually discussed, or is it mostly "these people suck, and are therefore wrong." Believe me, I get a lot of that myself.

I don't think anyone is deliberately faking results, or lying, but any reasonable person can see that in the current hostile environment there's at least as much incentive on the part of scientists to "lean" in the direction of certain answers as there is for industries to lean in the other direction.

It's amazing that I still haven't been able to get this simple point across.

The study I used for an example is not flawed, as far as data goes. The statistical manipulations described in the paper are way over my head, so I have nothing to judge them by, and I have assumed there are no flaws there either. The problem, as it often is, is the selection of data space.

My main point is that the data taken over the past 20 years shows cooling, and the data taken over the last 50 years shows warming. You can construct a simple curve that accurately meets both criteria as easily as I can. What does it look like? Does it make the point they're trying to make?