[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-...