I read a bit of some of them ... enough to get the flavour. But when the point is quantity rather than quality I stop reading.
One well written sentence and a link trump a page full of text. So in response to your shorter version:
"Funding by industry is bad. But why?"
Because it comes with strings. Look at the current scandal in the FDA and JAMA about funding of pharmaceutical work being corrupted. For example only publishing favorable results.
"Enormous global warming funding is by environmental groups etc that have a vested interest in supporting global warming. Why is this not also bad?"
In some cases it is bad. That is why I don't quote GreenPeace and some other groups where money may be corrupting objectivity. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You seem please with industry funded research (because you agree with it) and derisive toward GreenPeace (because you don't). I don't trust either of them.
"NewScientist paints those that disagree with research into global warming as ?attacking?. They imply something sinister about such attacks."
They are. That is exactly what they are doing. They are responding with information from public relations departments ... not results from peer reviewed journals.
"A power station gave a grant to a scientist because it said that there needed to be a voice of reason against the ?alarmists?. Is this really a sinister comment to make or even unreasonable."
That is hyperbole not fact. They gave money to someone with a reasonable expectation he wouldn't sink them with a torpedo. No one hires an attorney who will get up in front of the jury and call him a piece of trash. That is just normal human behaviour.
If there had been a real desire for objective research they could have provided access to their facility and taken no financial position. Grad students would have gladly jumped at the chance.
"Power companies make profits no matter what restrictions are placed on CO2 emissions or carbon credits or add on carbon scrubers. So why should they care?"
Good question ... but the truth is that they all do. So perhaps you should put that question to them. While you are at it why not ask Ford and GM, who passed the cost on to consumers, why they opposed seat belts?
Conclusion:
Objectivity means always using critical thinking skills. It means I am as cynical and distrustful of those I agree with as with those who I detest.
The fact that I like someone or something doesn't make them right. And the fact that I dislike something doesn't make it ALWAYS wrong.
