[dejb]

I think it is probably most relevant to consider where the funding comes from - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. You really would have to involve those who fund the research in your little conspiracy theory for it to make sense. Publicly funded research money generally comes from the government. I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming. In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.

In the case of private organisations the incentive to pay for biased research is obvious and it is an expected tactic.

When proposing a conspiracy theory such as the one you are with respect to global warming it can help to point to a previous examples of where a similar thing has occurred. As an counter conspiracy theory example I'll put up the debate over smoking. Although public research started to show signs of health problems, the smoking industry fought with their own paid 'research'. Millions of lives have probably been lost as a result of the delays in changes to public policy because of the FUD spread by the smoking lobby. To me the incentives with global warming seem to be the same as with smoking was and I see every reason to believe the situation is the same.

[jrmurad]

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming

The incentive seems obvious to me but correct me if I'm wrong: increased taxes and regulation resulting in more power for politicians.

[dejb]

It seems your conception of the conspiracy runs deaper than I could have imagined. You are only one step from arguing that global warming as the basis for a plot to enslave the people of the world.

In the end governments have people's expectations of improved living standards to deal with. If the people don't approve of the way things are going they are voted out of office (or removed some other way in non-democracies). Unless you actually believe some kind of 'enslaved world' theory you'd find that the additional costs associated with the carbon reduction are somthing most goverments are keen to avoid for as long as possible.

[Tichy]

Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too? And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.

[anamax]

> Doesn't regulation limit the power of the politicians, too?

No. Regulation is an opportunity to pass out favors.

> And the taxes would have to be increased for specific spending, not for stuff the politicians might prefer to spend the money on.

No, spending doesn't have to be for specific things. (What fraction of alcohol taxes goes to alcohol treatment?)

Moreover, controlling more spending is typically more interesting than controlling specific spending.

To put it another way, dollars are fungible wrt political power.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...

[anamax]

> I don't really see enough incentive for the governments of the world to be paying for biased research in favour of global warming.

Then you don't understand monkeys. (Govts are groups of monkeys.)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/climate-debate-...

> In fact I would argue that the previous US administration demonstrated a significant bias against the global warming case.

And, you don't understand large organizations. (The president and/or congress doesn't actually have strong control over the bureaucracies.)

Even Louis XIV was probably wrong when he said that he was the state.