Should we believe AGW-supportive scientists who have ever received funding from government?
It is often stated that we should not assign any credibility to any scientist who in any way, directly or indirectly, ever received any money from an energy company - even in cases in which the scientist works for a public research non-profit that received a donation from an energy company.
This is because energy companies potentially stand to gain from the popular disbelief in AGW - their activities will be less-taxed and people will be allowed to buy their products. Of course, they won't be forced to.
But AGW theory supports the idea of carbon taxes and other restrictions - of larger and more powerful government. And those won't be voluntary. Government stands a lot more to gain from AGW than business stands to lose from it. (In fact, many energy companies are now starting to support AGW because one of the 'solutions' would be a mandatory cap and trade system and almost every energy company is also an energy trader on the NYMEX or Platt's).
So, if the funder's pecuniary interest in the outcome renders any work, and any conclusion, produced by a scientist who received such funding, directly or indirectly, the "fruit of the poisonous tree," then that should work both ways - in fact it MUST work both ways to be at all logical.
Can anyone name ANY pro-AGW scientist who has never received funding from government?
Is there ANY scientist, then, who isn't tainted?
Or should we judge the work and conclusion of ALL scientists on its MERITS?
Flavian, yes, government stands to benefit from a new tax, the same way you would stand to benefit from a raise.
Dawaii the provider of the funds undeniably has a direct pecuniary interest in the results, in the conclusions the scientists reach.
Either that on its face disqualifies the scientist and his or her report, or it does not.
Otherwise you're applying a different standard to reports whose findings you agree with than the one you apply to reports whose findings you disagree with.