hmmm, interesting comment about the lack of integrity of the scientific community.
If integrity is the issue regarding scientist, I would dare say that most of the scientific results that we all enjoy would be a foundation we could stand on if there weren't basic integrity within how science operates. This is not to say that scientists are saints and don't have pressures to produce results. But the nature of science which is not opinion based as much as it is based upon building a case of repeatable conformable observations.
Is science always right? I would say that science advances as the community of knowledge advances. There are after all more to learn about the physical universe everyday.
The idea the climate science is somehow substandard or perverted by political opinion vs. other areas of science is a claim I cannot agree on. Global Warming is not a new idea. And while early hypothesis's can always be debated, if the community of scientists can establish enough evidence and trials and repeatable tests, well, it bears working to understand it and the implications of the information and conclusions drawn from the evidence.
Just 5 years ago, there was enough doubt to place the likelyhood of global warming as being from the emission of green house gases at 60% likelyhood. 5 Years later, based upon the results of continued research, we are now at 90% based upon the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Regardless, I know I'm not going to change a conservative's mind about the values of science and the nobility of the profession. I would just point out that scientists and their integrity and their practices are important to the actual quality of our lives. It is one thing to talk about people and perceptions of the world and how and why we think about things and everyday life. Plenty of variability to debate.
Having know scientists who conduct research in the medical sciences, what you publish is scrutinized and if critically important also verified by repeating those observations. The nature of peer review is such that fraud, which does occur, can be exposed. Or erroneous results or lack of verification often identified. (i.e. cold fusion.)
My inclination is to believe what science is reporting that the globe is warming do to the CO2 being released by burning fossil fuels.
If your inclination is to refute that, well I only have one proposition for you.
Are you sure that CO2 emissions are not having an impact on the environment?
Is it possible that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is impacting the climate?
What would you need to see as evidence to convince you that CO2 can alter the environment?
And lastly, do you really believe that climate scientists are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to do what exactly?
There are times when we don't like what we hear. Just because we don't like what we hear doesn't mean it is not true. There is also time to be skeptical about what we are being told and what policies we should be engaging on based upon results of scientific findings.
Naturally, all you have to do is put Al Gore in front of something and all good conservatives who equate liberalism with socialism will just mock and ridicule the message as delivered by a reviled politician.
Debating policy is fine. Being a skeptic is fine. Being a denialist is something else. Being a conspiratorialist is also something else. I'm beginning to believe that good reason and thought are now on the edge of just being honery.
Personally, I will share that I'm not going to be around when the real s bomb hits the fan. Having no children, I really don't care about what my progeny will have to face. And being an athiest, well I'm not too concerned about the survival of the human race. So I don't care about global warming, I'm just being honest about this, but I'm not really going to doubt what the scientists are saying, because I'm not hearing a really rational thought process as to why the science is wrong.
Lastly about the grant thing, I'm pretty sure the oil industry would happily fund and have funded studies to try to disprove the effects of burning fossil fuels at the rate we are. I recall that after the report released, that there was an effort to find scientist to provide the counter point to the conclusions from the international panel studying the results of the evidence. If conservative who have money aren't trying to fund studies to disprove global warming, then what is this world coming too?
...speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money...-- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect - Wm. F. Buckley Jr.