All scientists are biased. In my field of biostatistics for pharmaceuticals, we run double-blind studies to eliminate most forms of bias and it can still be easily argued that some bias still slips in.

Climate science does not allow for the luxury of performing double-blind experiments. there are MANY assumptions that are used in climate science and every assumption adds some bias, especially when the assumption is made under unblinded conditions.

So when I say that the cliamte scientists are baised, I do not mean that as an insult. In fact, while I think their modeling is off, I am not suggesting that they are purposefully adding bias, or that they are not trying to work towards the best solution.

Simply put, most of the funding for climate change is dependent upon fear of man-made climate change. Further, the political drive to have clear answers is enormous. Thus their bias causes them to overestimate as this is the position that is most advantageous for them, AND the certainty with which they report their results is extremely exagerrated.

What becomes more tiresome is that the warmers who use the research of the scientists have little scientific knowledge. They tend to exagerrate the certainty and the estimates more than was intended by the scientists.

Let me give you an example. One scientist ran a model that was an extremely unlikely worst case scenario, It was published in a science magazine as a certainty. To give you how "worst case" this was, it projected 10 degrees of warming with a CO2 concentration of 700 ppm. During the Jurassic period, the CO2 concentration was 2200 ppm, more than 3 times the CO2 in the worst-case model, and the temps during the Jurassic period were 2 degrees lower than that of the Jurassic period.

C,

Increased severity of storms??? And I assume that you can provide a study showing a statistically significant increase in the intensity of storms???

Ohhh, I am sorry. I am asking you to use science again. Mea culpa.

FSM,

If one person came up with a reason that billions of dollars of funding should stop flowing to climate change scientists, he would instantly be stoned by the scientists. Do you really think the scientists who are now out of a job are going to praise him? I am sure factory workers praise the people who invent machines that replace them.

Edit:

Please note that many warmers here are silly enough to think that politics does not in any way influence the science as they continually reference the IPCC report. To find the irony in this, simply figure out what the I in IPCC stands for.

Yes. James Annan has written on his blog

Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.

For other possible explanations of warming, the scientists adopt a line of prove it. For CO2, any helpful evidence is immediately adopted, and not looked at skeptically. That is why things like the hockey stick get promoted. Claims of glaciers melting in a few decades get put into a report with no review.

I am sure there is bias in each of us, even if we do not repress the bias in the long run the bias will be exposed.

Right now there are thousands of scientist all over the world working on various parts of climate science. If one of those scientist could come up with a reason why AGW was false, he or she would probably become an instant hero and millionaire. It is one of those things many of us, including non scientist like myself, would want science to be wrong about.

All scientists are biased as are all humans in general. It stands to reason that climate scientists are not immune. Now how that affects this issue is a matter of great debate.

The source of your friends thought about looking down one specific route probably relates to the IPCC, which is considered the most comprehensive collection of climate science by various scientists. This group was formed in 1988 to investigate if CO2 from fossil fuels contributes to global warming.

This can be seen in the original IPCC definition of climate change in its first report from 1995:

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”

That is absolutely false. James Hansen who is was a top climate scientist is now a full time Communist advocate. He was the head of climate research in the US and was caught endorsing political candidates, which is illegal for a public figure in that position, taking bribes, and participating in radical demonstrations, again against the rules of propriety and illegal for one in his position.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...

Here Jimmy is caught cooking the books. That certainly shows bias. And there are more like him.

They are scientists and their first priority is the science I don't think there is any field without bias, but having a bias and being able to use real science to back it up is still science. Compare this to all the denier BS which isn't real climate science but lies and misinformation or aliens or science that is irrelevant to GW

Is is a fact that for decades, the rise in temperature is comparable to the rise in CO2. A monkey could draw the logical conclusion. it is a fact that the planet has never warmed this quickly. before modern times this amount of warming took mare than a thousand years and now it less than 200 years

Lo and behold, one of the first predictions of GW was an increase in the severity of storms and sh*t if they weren't right.