The question of funding goes both ways. In general, funding is in question when the provider of the funding is looking for a specific outcome. This may or may not lead to downplaying, ignoring, or using selective evidence to make the case. There is no doubt that the Heinz foundation, Soros foundation and many others funding climate research have just as biased an opinion as any oil oufit. Not only are they as biased, but the levels of funding on the "pro-global warming" side dwarfs the oil industry funding. You throw in the mainstream media using terms like "deniers" and that stacks the deck further in favor of those who take the moral high ground.

Thank you for allowing both sides of this issue to be fairly heard.
I go to acuweather every morning and I took down that other weather site from my bookmarks last week.
When so called scientists try to stifle debate by censorship then we know they must have weak arguments.

I think a fair question is to look at the funding of the scientists who claim global warming is caused by human activity. How many scientists fear having their funding eliminated if they dare to question the theology of human caused global warming?

If people question the research showing global warming is not caused by man because of the funding, should we not also question the scientists who claim global warming is caused by humans for the very same reason? What are their motives and conflicts?

As far as the term "denier", it is a term used to try and draw a parallel between those who don't think global warming is caused by man and the people who deny the holocaust. It is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate people from expressing a differing opinion.

Yes, I live in Canada and if you question human-caused global warming, you are treated as a kook or a right wing nut. I, however, have not heard the human-caused global warming fans yet explain the cause of warming on Mars and its disappearing ice cover?" If someone has heard any answer to that question, other than solar irradiance, I would like to hear what the suggestions are.

Skeptics face an uphill because - HELLO - most of the scientific evidence supports man-made climate change. If the truth isn't on your side, then yes, you will face an uphill climb.

The people who claimed tobacco wasn't harmful also faced an uphill climb back in the 60s. Poor guys.

As John McCain said yesterday, "The debate is OVER."

When so called scientists try to stifle debate by censorship then we know they must have weak arguments.

The only "stifling" of debate, and "censorship", that has been disclosed recently is the Bush administration's ham-handed and brazen muzzling of scientists within its influence. The same administration has simultaneously slashed funding for data collection technology, such as satellites, so that the eyes and ears that allow us gather climate data are disabled as well.

Tobacco researchers can be relied on to provide reasonably accurate results to questions like "how do we enhance the nicotine content of our product" or "how can we increase the shelf-life of our product." On the other hand, they are probably not the most objective source for answers to questions like "is smoking dangerous."

Similarly, oil industry researchers can be relied on to provide reasonably accurate answers to a host of questions involving the discovery, production, and delivery of petroleum products. They are probably not, however, the most objective source for answers to questions like "does fossil fuel consumption contribute to global warming."

Research must be funded by SOMEBODY if it is to take place at all. All of us benefit from research that is as objective as possible.

The purpose of the peer-review process, and the long tradition that produces it, is to expose and compensate for bias. This is why researchers strive to publish data and methods, cross-check each other's calculations, and validate the results of their own and others research. While still imperfect, this is the best humankind has come up with so far.

Perhaps some of our resident "skeptics" can suggest where objective research funding SHOULD come from. The petroleum industry? The Bush adminstration?

My god, they are still arguing about what/who caused it, while they should be talking about what needs to be done to solve it and morover, what action needs to be taken to cope with it.

I think a better term than 'denier' is 'debunker'. That better reflects what those who debunk the global warming scam are doing.

I am new to AccuWeather and so far I like what I see. I removed the site I used to use because they don't have an open mind about global warming. I don't know the answers that explain climate change but neither does anyone else. There is more to be learned about earth's climate than is known today and I am not ready to subscribe to one theory at the exclusion of all others. What kind of scientific method is that?

I go to acuweather every morning and I took down that other weather site from my bookmarks last week.
When so called scientists try to stifle debate by censorship then we know they must have weak arguments. I agree, Rodval. It is so true.

The pro-AGW side always says there's proof it's caused by man...I haven't seen any yet. The globe has gotten warmer the last few years and CO2 levels have gone up, but that certainly is no proof that the increase in CO2 caused the warming, or that man caused it! What will your opinion be in several years when your quality of life has gone way down because of increased taxes or the price of goods being artificially high to pay for a carbon cap in a vain attempt to lower the Earth's mean temperature? At the same time, China will be firing up 500 more coal-fired generating stations. That's right, 500. Isn't something seriously wrong with this logic? We go into a self-caused recession (if we're lucky that's all) while China and India, having more than 2 billion people between the two of them, take the logical approach and cash in economically at our expense. And the climate gets warmer for awhile then cools again, just as it has all along.
Hopefully no President or Prime Minister will actually go through with any serious action that hurts our economies because if they do, they'll be out the next election. That will show how people aren't willing to sacrifice the advances in technology and comfort that we've gained over the centuries. If a realistic alternative comes out for transportation or power generation, I'm all for it. But don't go hacking away at my livelihood or my wallet, I'm hurting enough as it is. If the Oceans rise at all, it won't be because of any man-made contribution to CO2, which only comprises 0.035% of the atmosphere according to a Google search.I'm more concerned with the pollutants that go into the atmosphere.
Seas will rise slowly enough, if at all, giving years of time to move inland. There will be no quick massive flooding. Beware the chicken little's. They always come from the same political spectrum, without fail, and will be back with another Apocalypse when this one has run it's course and fizzled out. The history of the Left has proven me right so far and will on this too.

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

I can't believe that this blog claims to "cut through the hype." Whether or not "skeptics" have the right to speak their mind is not the issue - of course they do. In fact, for at least the past 6 years, they have been running government policy here in the US. The real issue is that the majority of scientists, the public, and (slowly) policymakers agree that humans are the major source of emissions-based warming.

Skeptics can disagree with the overwhelming consensus, but this minority doesn't have the right to hold up everyone else in moving forward.

From Canada's National Post:
===============================================
Climate consensus and the end of science
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Friday, June 16, 2006

If science were to become a belief system, then the belief with the greatest number of followers would become established fact and received knowledge. Knowledge based on observation and rational inference would play second fiddle to what Barnes calls "customarily accepted belief." This belief is "sustained by consensus and authority."

...

Global warming science by consensus, with appeals to United Nations panels and other agencies as authorities, is the apotheosis of the century-long crusade to overthrow the foundations of modern science and replace them with collectivist social theories of science. "Where a specific body of knowledge is recognized and accepted by a body of scientists, there would seem to be a need to regard that acceptance as a matter of contingent fact," writes Barnes. This means that knowledge is "undetermined by experience." It takes us "away from an individualistic rationalist account of evaluation towards a collectivist conventionalist account."

In short, under the new authoritarian science based on consensus, science doesn't matter much any more. If one scientist's 1,000-year chart showing rising global temperatures is based on bad data, it doesn't matter because we still otherwise have a consensus. If a polar bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being outside the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.

===============================================

The article continues and you can read the whole thing here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=d35ca1eb-50b8-4546-8950-ca9ad18eb252&p=2

I believe Barnes is correct, and this is a sad state of affairs for all of us.

WoodNfish, good article.
DC Sanity, the facts from here do allow me to hold up "the process". If I think badly enough about misleading, collective propaganda, I feel it's my duty as a citizen to try and prevent folly.

Always look to see how deep the hole is that someone is digging for you before leaping in with your eyes closed and bringing your family with you. A lot more "unbiased" homework on both sides of the equation has to be done on this subject.

Scientists on the left are trying way too hard to push this through the political process as quickly as possible, now that the fear ball is rolling. This rolling ball gathers together all of the usual folks that will follow any cause, just to align their lives with something that has the word global, landfill or radical in it.

"I want to save the planet" they say! You'll be lucky if the planet let's you remain living on it in it's "natural" course of climate change and species extinction that has been going on since it's birth. Every living organism on the planet is just a small parasite trying to stay alive until your the last of your species. If you think humans are any different, then you must think that men are gods.

DC Sanity
When you start saying words like the "majority" or "overwhelming consensus", I would sure like anyone to produce the studies, votes, polls and demographics that brought you to this conclusion.

China and India, or in short, half the worlds population, are not sitting in your camp right now. Either are the many millions who could not care less about climate change and just go about their lives without worry of such things.

In a global debate, you require over 3 billion people on your side to have a majority. You could have 10 million scientists come up with a study, but if the general population of the world does not care about it, then it becomes meaningless. I will safely guess to say that your camp is just a small club in comparison, trying to force the rest of the world to think like you.

DC, since when did reality become the subject of poll results?

WoodNfish, good article.

You guys post pieces by Terence Corcoran and Rush Limbaugh and then accuse the "leftists" of spreading "propaganda"?

You're hilarious, thanks for the belly-laughs.

This entire UN IPCC process has been nothing more that a propaganda campaign from the very start. As far back as 1992 they tried to create the impression that there was a the image of a false "consensus" among scientists on climate change. If any scientist dared to raise an object, instead of engaging in a debate, he would be summarily dismissed as a kook and out of the mainstream because he didn't agree with the "consensus." His arguments would just be ignored.

Let's take one example of how this new scientific method works. Do you remember the Mann's "hockey stick" graph from the last UN report that showed steady global temperatures for a millenium before rapidly rising in the late 20th century? It was the centerpiece of the "consensus" back before it was thoroughly discredited. Where is this graph in the current report? It has been airbrushed out as completely as one of Stalin's enemies from offical Soviet photographs. Instead of addressing what is an embarassing poor piece of science, the IPCC has replaced it with another temperature graph the conveniently starts in 1850, allowing the IPCC to conveniently ignore the controversy over the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age. There isn't even a footnote explaining the change. We are all supposed to forget it ever existed and trust that they have the science right this time.

If the IPCC is so confident of the science, why the three month delay between releasing the summary and technical assessment that shows the science behind the conclusions? It is clear that the advocates of global climate change want to have three months free time to push their dire warnings without having to actually defend the science. Is there any wonder why people remain skeptical.

When it takes 3 to 4 days for an opinion to show up on this site, the ball gets dropped and the forum begins to lose its fresh discussion capability and interest. I will seek a site that has more immediate and rolling conversation. Folks could do better by snail mail. Sorry, see ya!

John D. - My apologies for the delay in posting comments. I don't work 7 days a week and sometimes have other responsibilities beyond maintaining the blog.