Originally Posted by houghtam
Still completely clueless, I see.
There's a reason for consensus...the data pretty much speaks for itself. "Consensus" is the result of the research.
In other words, the scientific community doesn't come up with a result, then try to justify it. I can understand that you, in your desperate search for scandal after scandal, would think that it's common practice to come up with the answer to a question before doing the research to confirm it, but that's just not how the scientific community operates.
Hate to break this to team Naive, but a guy who's entire livelihood rests on studying the 'threat' posed by AGW is going to start off with a preconception that there's a valid reason for the time and energy spent. "Nothing to see here" doesn't pay the bills.
Put another way, if you believe oil-funded research is automatically suspect because of motive, by definition, you have to assume the same of AGW-advocacy funded research.