[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not as if all of the research being funded privately isn't peer reviewed or isn't published in the same journals as publicly funded research, because much of it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. I haven't looked in recent months, but last I did look, the climate change naysayers hadn't really done any research, almost none anyway that had been published in established, respected journals. They make pronouncements and argue against the results of those doing the research, but their research (if they do any) isn't showing up in the legitimate journals. (I wouldn't be surprised if by now they've created their own journals, but...) Of course you may be able to find an article or two from the naysayers; I heard they managed to slip one through at one point.

Again, you've got one group doing the research and publishing in known journals, and you have naysayers paid directly by corporate employers. If you can put as much stock in the latter as in the former, then science has lost pretty much all its value, hasn't it? Now really, you have a science background. Don't you think it's more than a huge stretch to argue you can weight the statements from the two sides anywhere near equally?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you specifically pick "climate-change naysayers" you're pretty much restricting yourself to hacks, since I think the evidence is incontrovertible and insurmountable (as I said). That's like picking "evolution naysayers".

My point is that corporate funded research per se is not inherently less trustworthy that publicly-funded research, and the scientific literature is filled with privately funded research that is peer reviewed and published in the same journals as publicly funded research.