[Citizen Tom Paine]

Here is one problems with "science" as it it is currently practiced. The scientific method is this procedure.
1. Unexplained fact or phenomenon
2. Fact gathering
3. Hypothesis
4. Experimentation
5. Duplication
6. Application

Notice that my politics do not influence the outcome. Anyone in the world can duplicate my experiment and check my results which were published in a peer reviewed journal.

Today, however; the scope of some experiments (or the secrecy surrounding their procedures) makes it impossible for an individual researcher to duplicate their results.

Notice with climatic predictions are done with supercomputers by government or university labs. The data inputs and the results of the runs are not available. All that is reported is the interpretations which are subject to
biases. Consequently, the scientific method is bent and the results are suspect.

[drhogan]

i wouldn't disagree about politics affecting science; i know it does. but i'm skeptical about what your are saying about only intepretations as opposed to results being reported. i don't read meteorology journals, so i don't know for sure, but most scientific journals require results to be reported. if they didn't, anyone could report anything. (obtaining data sets, however, might be a lot more difficult.)

[drhogan]

the real politics comes in with the funding and with the selection of articles for publication. certain studies will be funded, and others won't. but that's the nature of running studies at taxpayers expense--the representatives of the taxpayers, along with the executive branch, determine funding priorities. (and there's nothing really wrong with that.)
the second political sifting comes when peers review and then decide whether or not to accept an article for publication. however, there are usually ways to get around political obstacles, e.g., by submitting to less-exalted publications.