How can I tell that these studies are rigorous enough and can not be falsified? There is virtually no funding directed towards the criticism, why should I expect to see an unbiased picture? True, there is no professional criticism, but why should we expect it?
There was an article in the news: "Climate skeptic Pat Michaels refuses court request to disclose funding sources" - why should he disclose that information? It is his science that we should be interested in, that should be rigorously falsified, definitely not
his funding sources.
Here is a nice site (don't worry, no criticism on that site) http://www.heatisonline.org/disinformation.cfm
, just search for 'funding'. Why cutting the funding for professional skepticism should be considered as a good, well balanced approach?