Must be a climate series at BBC. This one is on bias by scientists who claim human-induced climate change. It is linked, but here are a couple of quotes:

"Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them."

""Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government." "

"The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling. "

For me (heartland Chris back again), I don't work directly on climate science; instead, I am involved in siting core locations to recover records of past climates. It just happens that these cores and the very careful analysis of these cores by others also provide ages that can be used to give slip rates for faults and folds. As the link discusses, I don't think that a study that uses the scientific method to examine the link of CO2 to climate change would be more likely to be rejected...as long as it was not full of pseudo science setting out to disprove climate change/CO2 link. It is better to present Model A vs Model B and test each hypothesis. That was one criticism of a proposal by someone else and me for studying faulting and folding: we did not clearly present hypotheses to be tested.

Yes, the funding situation is involved in my involvement in paleo-climate research. If I want to know how active a fault is, or what the tectonic environment in the past was, it is smart to make use of climate science in order to get funding for core holes and also to get precise dating done.

Hmm...I tried but this early did not make a very coherent argument. Maybe responses to this will get me thinking.
Chris

• BBC climate bias