They left out another bias, and it is significant:

Government funding bias. This is a variant of industry bias. However just as industry bias can tend to yield results that the industry would like to see, Government will yield results that governments would like to see. In other words, an excuse to legislate and regulate more.

Pretty simple resolution - just dial it back by a half to a third...

I have a better idea.

Congress should give money without any restrictions on it for scientific research to reputable researchers, and Congress is not competent to judge their reputability so they should rely on other scientists to judge it.

Simple as that.

Gee, don't we already do that? You know, the National Science Foundation and stuff?

Just askin'.

@ab3a, you are engaging in Motivated Reasoning, a well-known psychological reasoning flaw.

You do the same with your climate denial. It's pretty obvious you're not familiar with modern psychology and are engaging in classical reasoning flaws. I suggest you study the literature and find out why you are wrong.

Government will yield results that governments would like to see. In other words, an excuse to legislate and regulate more

@ab3a
your conspiracist ideation is showing...
http://journals.p....0075637

so... quick question: what if everyone is seeing the same thing regardless of gov't affiliation, nation, culture, beliefs, or location?
One would think that, due to the inability of cultures to agree with each other, if they're all coming up with the exact same conclusions then there is something known as a scientific fact...

they're validating the studies that came before them

so you're choosing to ignore the entire planet and the science results from everywhere because ...????

https://phys.org/...ies.html

You see nothing wrong with government sponsored research but are clearly suspicious of industry research. Therefore I must be wrong with my "motivated reasoning"?

They are both large organizations, albeit with different motivations. Why is one to be suspected, but the other is not?

Industry sponsored research deals in outcomes. Industry does not want a study that doesn't lead to something they can't use. If they can't make a product out of it they will at the very least want to cite the data in some advertising blurb.

Government doesn't push for outcomes. Government grants are perfectly fine if a study yields no significant results but is scientifically sound.
And make no mistake: such studies are worthwhile. E.g. knowing that drug X has no effect is as good as knowing that drug X has an effect - it prevents people getting duped into buying drug X.

You see nothing wrong with government sponsored research but are clearly suspicious of industry research. Therefore I must be wrong with my "motivated reasoning"?

@ab3a
1- that's called transference. try re-reading what i wrote because i never mentioned me being suspicious of anything

2- see AA_P above

3- you've typically been against anything that is specific to AGW, hence my argument above

that means, by definition, that you've made a choice to ignore the scientific results from not only every other gov't on the planet, but also every civilian non-gov't sponsored research on the planet as well

so, you've chosen to consider all the research on a specific topic as part of a conspiracy simply because you don't want to accept the research

that is called conspiracist ideation and is no different than the argument xtians use that their beliefs be accepted as equal to science

You see nothing wrong with government sponsored research but are clearly suspicious of industry research.

I am suspicious because all the government sponsored research, by governments that are at odds, is the same, and different from all the industry research, by companies that are in agreement.

Your ability to detect unwitting conspiracies is in question, and appears to be denigrated.

Conspiracy theories are the last resort of the hard of thinking.

@Stumpy, my opinions on global warming are not relevant here. In any case, if you read what I have written, I do not dispute that the climate is warming. I dispute the notion that we should pay for carbon dioxide indulgences to keep global warming under control. That's not the same thing.

In other words, you're misrepresenting my positions on orthogonal subjects and then you fail to answer my question. Why do you suspect industry but not government sponsored research? I'm not passing judgement here, I'm asking what I believe to be a very civil, decent question.

At the end of the day I suspect this comes down to political views. You would prefer to trust a government over a profit oriented enterprise. You can declare that and I can accept it even though I disagree with it.

Instead you squirm and dodge the question. I'm not impressed.

my opinions on global warming are not relevant here.

Sure they are.

Especially when you make the same logical fallacy over and over again.

@Stumpy, my opinions on global warming are not relevant here

@ab3a
they are when you continue to reiterate the same logic fails

it's representative of your bias etc - establishes a precedent

In any case, if you read what I have written

you mean like you do?

see point 1 in last post - i don't suspect anything, yet you continue to make that a point of argument

you're misrepresenting my positions on orthogonal subjects and then you fail to answer my question

LOL
again, see point 1 above

also - i've not misrepresented anything and i did answer your post, you just don't like what i said

and might i point out that you also didn't answer my first question...

You would prefer to trust a government over a profit oriented enterprise

wrong
i trust neither

i trust only what can be validated
period
(you know...like the scientific method)

to share your own words back:
... you squirm and dodge the question. I'm not impressed.

At the end of the day I suspect this comes down to political views. You would prefer to trust a government over a profit oriented enterprise.

Just ask yourself: how often has self-commitment by the industry to increase quality, lower waste, etc. actually worked? Hint: the answer starts with 'n' and ends with 'ever'.
And these are the people you trust? That seems somewhat crazy.

Changes have only ever come about after being mandated by law.
And no: government isn't perfect or a perfect solution to everything. But profit oriented businesses are only good at being profit oriented - and nothing else. Wherever the issue is other than 'immediate profit' businesses aren't the ones you should go to. And this most definitely includes science.

Changes have only ever come about after being mandated by law.

If you say that, then you must believe that most of the technological progress humanity has made came at the behest of government. I disagree with that.

In fact, I don't trust any large organization, not industry, and not government. So I don't understand why you three give government funding a free pass for research bias concerns whereas you don't give that same free pass to industry.

For me, and you're welcome to disagree, I worry that, like industry, government also corrupts and biases research. Clearly the motives and means are different. But to suggest that this isn't much of a problem and shouldn't be watched, is foolish.

As further proof that such thing do happen, see some of the research in to genetics and its application to eugenics by governments such as Soviet Russia. Think that something similar can't happen here? I have a bridge to Brooklyn for sale...

If you say that, then you must believe that most of the technological progress humanity has made came at the behest of government.

No. But technological progress - especially today where things have gotten very subtle and complicated - comes on the back of solid science. The days of cobbling together something in your garage that changes the world are over. Even for those inventors they are reliant on computers and hi tech which again was developed only after someone did the hard science on this.

So I don't understand why you three give government funding a free pass for research bias concerns whereas you don't give that same free pass to industry.

Easy.
Industry decides what to fund based on profitability concerns. This introduces bias.
Government grants are NOT decided by someone with an agenda what to fund. The funding is decided by panels of scientists. Since scientists' interests is science there is no (or at the very least much less) bias

As further proof that such thing do happen, see some of the research in to genetics and its application to eugenics by governments such as Soviet Russia.

Good point. That is when individuals who aren't scientists (e.g. politicians) push an agenda.
But that is not how science and grants is set up in most of the world.

Yes, government could start to take over (of course the result is bad science. Because any time you go into research with preconceived notions of what the result should be you get biased science). It's up to the voters to vote for people who don't instrumentalize science. They didn't this time in the US and we'll see how much damage will be done.

Changes have only ever come about after being mandated by law

If you say that, then you must believe that most of the technological progress humanity has made came at the behest of government

ab3a
uhm... that's nonsensical IMHO - and that isn't what was said or even inferred, from what i can tell
i don't think anyone agrees with that

For me, and you're welcome to disagree, I worry that, like industry, government also corrupts and biases research. Clearly the motives and means are different. But to suggest that this isn't much of a problem and shouldn't be watched, is foolish

no one is saying it shouldn't be watched, so that is also nonsensical to me

it boils down to validation though, WRT gov't funded or industrial research - which is how science works