This is often asserted, but is it true? Most alarmism that I have seen is coming from the media or activist organizations; the few times I've seen scientist alarm has been when recent measurements have been worse in some way than their models predict.

On the broad level of course its true. The rise of global warming alarmism over the past three decades has enormously increased the level of funding for research, and turned the original scientists into kingpins who get to play on the world stage. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are biased by the money and power, but it does mean you should treat grant funded scientists with the same level of skepticism that you would treat Exxon funded scientists (that is, if there actually were Exxon funded scientists, unfortunately, the defense has decided to not show up the case).

This is often asserted, but is it true? Most alarmism that I have seen is coming from the media or activist organizations; the few times I've seen scientist alarm has been when recent measurements have been worse in some way than their models predict.

The typical modus operandi is that every time a "climate scientist" finds a shred of evidence that confirms their view, they run to the NYTimes with dire warnings. But every time their is evidence going the other way, they either hide it ( http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=345&filen... ) or lie about it ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php ). Thus the layman reading only the NYTimes keeps hearing that "recent measurements have been worse than predicted", despite that there are dozens of other data points going the other way.

Further, let's assume the funding relationship is true. Are all these scientists that dishonest? Wouldn't honest ones be reigning in their colleagues? Why haven't we seen this?

First, they are not completely dishonest. It is not a conspiracy. It is a scientific theocracy. They are true believers. But if history shows anything, priesthoods are very common, even among smart, well meaning people.

And yes, there are dissenters. For instance, a bunch of scientists criticized the IPCC reports saying, "Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein." and produced their own summary report. Read it here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

But because the priesthood controls the peer review and grant process, most of the dissenters are either tenured professors like Richard Lindzen, or completely independent people like Steve McIntyre.

Occaissionally, you will get someone on the inside to write something very brave: "But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research." http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:ww6XwH5p28wJ:coast.gkss...

They're expected to present and defend their claims in the court of public opinion and in the realm of politics; why are you shocked and appalled that they are doing so?

Well, it's not supposed to be their job. Their job is to present a full and balanced view, it's the job of policy makers to make the policy.

But of course that's not the case. My real problem is that newspapers and people like you still treat these scientists as unbiased experts, rather than as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Listen to what they say, but don't treat the fact that there is a consensus as evidence that they are right. Of course all the expert witnesses for the prosecution are going to be of the same mind.

Sure. So does astrophysics, evolutionary biology, ... How is the situation different from any other deep speciality?

The advantage other sciences have is that their theories can be proven or disproven on a short time scale. Either your rocket works or it doesn't. Your medicine either kills people or saves them. Thus you have independent verification and falsifiability.

The area of sciences that are not subject to these forces tend to diverge from reality very quickly, see: macroeconomics, string theory, most nutrition research, etc.

So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers.

There is no shortcut other than to either look closely at the science yourself, or else find individuals that you really trust, and follow their opinion.

I haven't looked deeply into the actual science. But the amount I have looked into it raises an enormous number of questions. For a layman's summary of the main issues with the science, read the report above, and read these:

http://commentlog.org/bid/4409/The-Case-for-Global-Warming-S...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579

http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants