Ok - thanks for sharing your background<quoted text>
Sorry for the late reply, I flew back to Sing just in time for Shabbat. Lucky me.
"Have I been directly involved in science in some time in my career path?" I supposed that depends on what type of science to which you're referring. I have always worked in the technology field and I'm currently back in academia finishing a degree in nursing.
My clinical work is at a teaching/research hospital but my most direct involvement in the research process was sleeping with grad students back in the day (My! They love to kvetch about their work).
However, I do read fairly widely (particularly if you include comics) and there is plenty of documented evidence concerning research bias, in all parts of the process, out there to look for. In general, I can refer you to a Wiki article on funding bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias ) as a type of experimenter's bias. The reference links are pretty interesting.
Specific to climate change, there is a fairly interesting account of one man's fight with the National Science Foundation (tax payer funded) concerning their pretty extensive bias concerning climate change research ( http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03... )
To follow up, you can read a Washington Times article concerning government research bias ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/... )
This list is no where near exhaustive and if you remain unconvinced of the possibility of systemic bias on the part of those in control of billions of dollars of research funding then I invite you to look into it on your own.
I fully appreciate that your specific experience might not contain such examples, but far from being cynical to believe it exists (consider the large amount of prima facie evidence out there) I would suggest to not believe bias exists across the entire range of the research process (from funding to publication) is being astoundingly naive.
a few observations
1. Wiki article - theoreticallly sound, but no where does it cite climate change as an example of funding bias. It does provide other examples - primarliy from the medical field, including the notorious cases from the Tobacco industry
2. Pielke article - argues for funding bias, but in the OPPOSITE direction that you are arguing. To quote from his Homepage
#5 "In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcings on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change..."
3. Washington times article - by a Cato institute researcher - a conservative think tank - hardly an objective voice - to quote wiki on the author: "...A self-described skeptic on the issue of global warming...". and goes on to report on his pedigree, which firmly puts him into a camp.
I never said that bias didnt exist - I just dont think,. with all the checks and balances that it has that big of an influence. It hasnt been my experience. Historically (in the past) the biggest issue is the lack of market (in the journals) for negative results, but in the explosion of the info age, this issue has retreated considerably as there are a plethora of electronic journals available who will publish negative results.
I think Pielke did an excellent job in his site framing the issue objectively, explaining the ramifications of theoretical bias. The nuances. I note he did have to state that global warming and climate change is not synonymous. DUH. But he is writing to lay people, so he had to say this.