Actually, there's plenty of evidence of it, most of it provided by the climategate emails themselves.
That's not "plenty", that is one incident, and it has already been explained and corrected. It was not a matter of corruption.
Hm. So the paranoid right is making all sorts of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't happen in Europe because... it's actually the corporate lobby's fault.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
It's not conspiracy theory that the corporate lobby directly informs American government policy and contributes billions in the process. Take food for example. In the 80's the FDA conducted around 80,000 inspections in food facilities per year, and that number is now down to below 20,000 per year, despite rapid growth in the food industry. That turning of a blind eye doesn't just happen for no reason. People get paid off or positioned in policy roles to make sure profits take priority. The same goes for the fossil fuel industry. Recently the judge in Louisiana overturned the drilling moratorium, and a short time later it was shown that he has financial ties to oil stock. Whether or not his intentions runs deep, there is still enough controversy there to demonstrate my point. Many multinational corporations have more power than government now, and the finances to match.
(And do you have any idea how much money from oil companies scientists setting out to prove AGW get? It's a lot. As the climategate emails have shown.)
As long as those studies are peer reviewed then I will give them the time of day. If they're studies funded by big oil and then promoted by big oil, I'm not interested.
You keep confusing science with scientists. Science cannot be corrupted. Scientists, even if you believe are not corrupted, are susceptible to curruption.
I agree... scientists are people and can be corrupted, which is why the peer review process exists. Scientists with a clear agenda cannot get their studies published because their research will inevitably contain unsupportable holes.
I rarely go to news agencies for scientific information. There are better places to find such, and not just peer-reviewed journals.
Peer reviewed journals are the only gold standard for scientific information, and government research can come a close second depending on the motives, funding, and who is paid to do conduct the findings.
Fine, maybe "liberal" was the wrong word. But there is a mindset which causes people to see evil everywhere in the modern world and in humanity, and is predisposed to embrace a theory which means that humans must "change their ways" (to quote way too many AGW believers) in order to even survive. It's not much of a stretch to say that most scientists are of this mindset - especially outside of the U.S., where most people in general are of this mindset.
Humans do need to change their ways. I mean, you are honing in on one very narrow spectrum of the environment (climate) which has generated enough controversy to perhaps be debatable to some degree; but during this debate, the right wing is completely ignoring other things like local air quality, deforestation, depletion of wild fish stocks and ocean ecosystems, the displacement of wildlife, etc. We are poisoning our own source of life and there is no denying it. Rates for diseases like cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and infertility have never been this high in all of human history. Our very core imperative to reproduce is now being obstructed by contamination.
How long are we going to sit around and keep ignoring the blaring signs before something is done? One in three people get cancer now in their lifetime. Are we going to wait until it's one in two... until it's every single person? How much will profit matter to us then? That is the future, and it's no propaganda campaign. The American Medical Association and British Medical Association have already posted projections for the next 40-50 years. Are you going to accuse them of liberal bias too?
Fighting climate change by proxy means we will be fighting all other areas of contamination to human health in air, water, and soil. I promise you, the main obstruction to this process is profit margins and corporate lobbying. Honest research is being willfully obfuscated by huge conglomerates who would suffer economic losses if policy changes.
What I want to know is, why is the modern American right wing so obsessed with protecting business at all costs when classical conservatives looked out for individuals?
It's silly to think that only in America could people's political and philisophical beliefs interfere with their scientific work. Just because people outside of America don't obsess over labels doesn't mean they don't have political/philisophical beliefs there, and that those prejudices can't interfere with their scientific work.
That's true, but again, the peer reviewed network balances it out. Even if there is one bad apple, the rest of the tree will notice it. Again, you would have to prove willful collusion and denial on a massive scale in order to demonstrate that the collective views of individual scientists are corrupting the entire scientific world. Such evidence is yet to be put forward by anyone.
The corporate lobby knows that it cannot effectively infiltrate the peer reviewed networks because it knows it cannot skew the data and hope to gain the support of such networks. All it can do is flood the airwaves with its own "studies" and counter-information and hope that enough people buy into it. Additionally, in the United States, the corporate lobby has successfully infiltrated politics in order to turn support of research conclusions into signs of political (dis)loyalty. i.e. if you "believe" in climate change (as if it's so subjective), you must be a radical liberal environmentalist who wants to destroy American business and the American way of life. You know, like those ones in the 70's. They're all of the same flock and we should be aware. Or better yet, they're socialists who want to take money out of our pockets to pay for hippy dippy green science projects that aren't even efficient.
The green energy sector in the U.S. is lagging behind woefully because of this. Europe is already implementing green energy supplements at the government level and is seeing successes. No one is saying fossil fuels can be completely replaced right now, but supplements? They are entirely doable. Yet the U.S. is the one developed nation that is lagging behind the most, because somehow, some way, people have been taught that green energy is quack science and has no relevance to the American way of life.
