"I'm curious. Why is it that support from oil companies is prima facie proof of dishonest scientific inquiry, while support from a government that is always looking for excuses to take what's left of our freedom away is never ever questioned?"

Because one of them is a sociopathic profit driven industry, and the other one is an oil company :)

Really though, I can't speak for the general case here, but government grants at least have a charter to be neutral, where big business will do just about whatever it takes to turn a profit. Government grant committees are sponsored by experts in the field, they decide who gets the grants - based on application, practicality, and innovation. Big business will sponsor whoever will turn them a bigger profit (not to say VERY useful things don't come out of private grants) but you MUST consider the source.

I would absolutely trust an exxon study that shows a new kind of drill is 15% more efficient. This kind of thing? Not so much.

Just to get back to OP, climate change etc.

I'm not saying climate scientists are perfect, and I recognize that their importance in society, and their chance of getting funds, rises if they claim the climate changes due to man's actions.

The point is that the scientific community at that point needs to take action and do meta studies, assign some research groups to the subject that have never dealt with it before to see what they think of it, etc.. The problem is scientific, not religious, and I'll attack any of the sides, pro and con, scientists, politicians and businessmen alike, if they reduce this very important subject to a question of "I do/don't believe this happens."

As for carbon credits,
Let's assume for a second that man-made climate change is a proven fact. Then they're very useful. They introduce a financial penalty to products that pollute a lot, giving consumers incentives to buy eco-friendly products (note, we're still working under the assumption the scientists are right, whether you agree with them or not) and manufacturers incentives to make their manufacturing processes as green as possible. I believe that once you arrived at the conclusion that there's such a thing as anthropogenic climate change, the introduction of some form of correcting system such as carbon credits becomes inevitable.

Redhouse I think you're showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the way research is conducted. The only people with the expertise to conduct legitimate research are the ones who have dedicated their careers to it. These fields are very specialized, and within climatology itself there are no doubt dozens of specific different branches

@red I don't think that carbon credits are inevitable. Look at the cfc ban 20 years ago. They didn't introduce cfc credits, they banned it. Carbon credits give the same financial motivation to convincing peoplethat AGW is real that oil companies have for convincing people that it's fake.

The difference is, oil companies aren't taking your money while at the same time running their CEOs houses on solar and wind cause they know AGW is real but just want to make a profit, while carbon credit millionaires ARE running their CEOs houses off of fossil fuels because they know it's fake. Both are greedy capitalist bastards, but one of them is honest about it.

@YJ.
I don't think so. Climatology is actually a composite research area with as major components physics, statistics and biochemistry. If people who perform classical research in those areas put their heads together to see what came out of their love child, I'm sure their results would be very reliable.

@philcore.
There's a fundamental difference between CFCs and CO2. CFCs are especially synthesized to perform certain tasks and their presence in the environment is highly dangerous, meriting a ban. CO2 is a simple side product mainly from combustion reactions, that human beings also produce simply by breathing. It can't be banned, but you can put a financial penalty on it when produced in vast quantities by chemical reactions and/or combustion machines.

Climate change doesn't have to be proved in order for us to grasp a simple reality which is we are devouring the earth's resources at an unsustainable rate, this may lead to climate change, but even if it doesn't we need to slow down our use of the earths resources. 'Greening' industry and carbon credits are good suggestions, I think they would get more support if we removed the climate change arguement from the need to slow down arguement.

@red - The problem with putting a "financial penalty" on it i sthat you are also putting a "financial reward" on it from the other side.

@Maniac - I agree about devouring resources. I'm probably one of the most "environmentalist" people who are skeptical about AGW. I'm a recycling nazi - especially aluminum, because it's the one resourse that actually costs less to recycle than to mine from scratch. I think we should STOP all deforestation immediately and confine mankind to live in the space that he has already carved out for himself. And stop paving the entire fucking world!! Talk about man-made global warming ... everywhere we replace plants and trees with concrete and steel, we increse the local temperature by 5 to 10 degrees. I'm also for population control because that's the only way to stop people from cutting down forests to build cities.

But having said all that - I still think that AGW is bullshit. In fact, I think that more CO2 would actually improve the situation. As krellen so inarticulately stated earler, "lay down some concrete and weeds will be popping up in a year" (paraphrasing - I didn't actually want to look it up). Well guess what ... weeds and all other plant life LOVE CO2!! They love it so much that the more we produce by burning their ancestors, the faster they grow and the more they need to sustain that growth ... a brilliant natural solution to the problem. I just wish that more environmentalists were science minded like me rather than politically and financially minded like Micheal Moore, Al Gore and James Cameron!

@philcore - "I'm also for population control because that's the only way to stop people from cutting down forests to build cities." thats not entirely true, in 1951 Newcastle had a population density of around 22,000 per square mile, in 2000 it had a pop density of around 6,500 per sq mile. We can accommodate far more people in our cities without touching a leaf of forest. Also living more tightly packed is greener in terms of energy use and transportation.

PS inner London has a density of over 22000 today so such a figur isn't slum living.

My point was just that I consider myself a very adamant environmentalist, and yet I know that AGW is bullshit.

@philcore - And how would you institute this population control of yours? Please enlighten us. Because if it involves involuntarily curtailing individual liberties of free men and women, I'm just going to tell you to go reproduce with yourself.

@red I'm going to keep trusting the experts. I don't find it likely that this many scientists are all "corrupt."

YJ
In science, even the slightest doubt must be researched to the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Better to have a panel of outsiders look critically at this newly developing science than to "trust the experts." In a sense, I think you're actually doing the same thing as the AWG deniers, you're reducing this matter to "who to believe" and this whole thread is about me convincing everyone that it's not about that.

@draug
How about paying people to get sterilized? Then it's their choice, rather than mandated. And they can always get it reversed, but then they pay.

I haven't thought too much about it, I was just making the point that I'm not the typical anti-enviromentalist who doesn't believe in AGW for political reasons. I don't believe it for scientific reasons

I think we should stop paying them to crank out babies. But that has little to do with the population problem on the planet. The US isn't overcrowded, not when compared to many third world countries, but we don't have the power or the right to enforce some form of "pay to play" program in those countries.

Any brain-washed liberal that thinks the US is overcrowded has never taken a cross country vacation.

Red:

Of course it reduces to "who you believe." If you don't then everybody has to have expertise in everything, which is clearly not feasible. I know, I do medical research myself so I know how damn hard it is, even for somebody who specializes in a given field. You must trust the specialists, otherwise you're a looby like krellin who thinks his opinion is as valid as documented, peer reviewed research.

The experts are the only ones qualified to have an opinion (worth considering). I don't have anything against any independent study (as if there weren't hundreds already done), but if those running it can't match the expertise of previous analyses, I take their conclusions with a big grain of salt, and so would any scientist. So if, hypothetically, you were able to put together a team that is qualified, more power to you. I find it highly unlikely that you'd be able to do so without recruiting from those with years of experience in the field.

That's not to say we shouldn't continue to examine this closely - you are 100% spot on there.

If you look at the average weight o america, you can show that it is possible to support abou three times the current US population with the same amount of food; just making them all a lot thinner - but that again would likely involve taking their 'individual liberty' away - or their right to be explpited by corporations at least... (yes, i think corporate advertising has lead to the fattening of america)

High fructose corn syrup has lead tobthe fattening of America and, yes, corporate advertising has contributed ot our intake of tha shit. I'm a Pepper... Pepsi Generation... Have a Coke and a smile... All the non-diet sodas are loaded with that shit in the US and it is pushed on us constantly. Add to it the fact that corn syrup is in most foods not marked sugar free and you start to understand why America is so fat. Canada doesn't push that shit and they are much healthier up there. Since coming back, I have reduced my pop intake (only drank diet anyhow) and started buying organic when I eat processed foods plus fresh meats and veggies and I feel a hell of a lot better.

If you look at the average weight, multiplied by the population - you get a decent estimate of the minimum water usage required. Along with a minimun caloric intake. Because humans basically need sugars and water to survive, and the more human (by person-weight) gives you how much is needed.

It is interesting that corporate strategy has lead to increased consumption rather than increased population numbers - are there no corporations pushing for massive immagration to increase their markets?