I agree, there is no reason GMI should be given a second thought. Their own website explains they are in the business of producing "sound science", which we know is a euphemism for political pandering.

From Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute

Last summer, Mother Jones magazine published an investigative piece identifying GMI and at least 39 other such think tanks who publish global warming denial pieces while receiving funding from ExxonMobil. Here's the list so you can add these to your "don't bother" list.

Here is a link that might be useful: mj

Dave, maybe this study from Emory University will help shed some light on your quandry. It certainly clarified my understanding of the role of thought in this and other issues.

"The study points to a total lack of reason in *p* decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning."

Here is a link that might be useful: livescience

I find the information on their site quite humorous. They must also be in the entertainment business. Here's a sample:

"For much of this century, however that process has been reversed. With genetic seed improvements, fertilizers, pesticides and the relentless land efficiencies of corporate farming, we almost trebled (and in many instances, more than trebled) the land-to-food productivity of our agriculture. That has saved a tremendous amount of land.....

"Biotechnology could double and redouble the agricultural productivity of land, in much the same way as silicon technology has doubled and redoubled the informational productivity of sand. We can do even better with livestock. First our cattle graze on the open range, then they fatten in feedlots, consuming much of the grain we grow. Triple the efficiency of the corn (if you can), then triple the efficiency of the cow (if you can), and you cut by nine-fold the amount of farm and range it takes to deliver a burger....

"Pesticides, preservatives, food irradiation and plastic packaging -- you name it, if the Soft Greens hate it, I can almost certainly add it to my list  almost all of these things have comparable effects. They sharply reduce losses along the food chain, from farmerÂs field to dining-room table, with commensurate reductions in the agricultural footprint. To put it another way, these things enhance the efficiency of the solar engines most widely used in this country and around the globe. TheyÂre not sitting on our rooftops, theyÂre not photovoltaics; theyÂre plants. Enhance their efficiency, reduce the losses, and you shrink the agricultural footprint."

Sounds like a wonderful, sustainable, golden civilization to me.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pristine America

Dswan,

I recall one wag saying, "It's never a question of no bias, what is at issue is what bias it is best to be biased by."

We all have presuppositions that act to filter incoming information. Peer review exists in order to reduce the impact of any one scientist's worldview but paradigms can and do become institutionalized. Those working for corporations are no more biased than those who work for environmental groups.

Don't merely read conclusions of studies, read the whole study. It isn't unusual for the conclusion to state something that is directly contradictory to the study itself, particularly where certain results are preferred by those providing the funding.