Here we go...
I've heard these arguments mannnny times before. And none of them are very valid. Here's why!
First of all, you link to "second-opinions.co.uk", hardly a reputable source on climatology. But let's say the content contains truths... but it can't be said to, it's merely a copy of an email sent by a no-name physicist to the APS. Funny thing is, this same Hal Lewis didn't write many papers/books, but one he DID write acknowledged that global warming is real and likely to increase. Hmmm... what happened here? Turns out he started working for a shady global warming denial organization (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) that hides its donations. Here, see for yourself:
Sourcewatch: Global Warming Policy Foundation
Where did you get the idea that I think some people want global warming to occur?
You ask me this, and then go on for 3 paragraphs answering your own question.
I think there are plenty of people who want to benefit from the belief that a catastrophic, man made, warming will occur. I think there is a long line at the government trough, including politicians and bureaucrats themselves, scientists, and businesses (green businesses right there at the front of the line). I think there are a lot of extreme narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths that have a need for power over others and are attracted to government to meet that need. Any justification will do.
You take two different phenomenons and try to jury-rig them together, but it's not going to fly. Your unsubstantiated/speculative assertions about narcissists/sociopaths wanting to benefit from global warming because of "taxes" or "power" are nonsensical. And to use the decades-long, hard, dedicated work of scientists who actually study in the relevant fields to argue against government corruption holds absolutely no weight, it's a childish and misguided accusation. Your logic is thus: "Because power-hungry, narcissistic/sociopathic people abuse government power... therefore anything the government does or funds is therefore corrupt and rooted in those negative human traits" That's quite a leap of logic... no? Scientists NEED GRANT MONEY to operate. Where the hell else are they supposed to get this? From private companies?? Fuck no. That would pose a much larger risk of corruption/narcissism than government grant money. You don't seem to understand how grant money or science works. There is almost ZERO link between government corruption and pushing for global warming. But actually, what's funny (or terrible/angering), is that governments (namely Canada) who have elected right-wing bureaucrats have tried to PUSH scientists/scientific organizations to DENY or downplay global warming. So... the truth is the corruption goes the opposite direction. I mean, christ, do you really think that green businesses are pushing some global hoax among thousands of scientists to support global warming?? Scientists from multiple fields and multiple reputable organizations/studies have INDEPENDENTLY (as in, not in collusion) verified the existence, anthropogenic nature, and serious risks of global warming. This is just as good as impartial aliens coming down to Earth and finding the same thing, without talking to us. Unless you provide any hard evidence that the entirety of global warming study is being pushed in some hoax, and I mean tangible evidence (no, the CRU emails are not evidence, they've been proven cherry-picked/misinterpreted/misunderstood/grossly exaggerated by deniers).
It all adds up to focus on wars government takes on primarily to benefit these special interests. Real wars financially benefit some groups; the war on drugs keeps countless people employed and benefits the drug companies who are licensed to sell their approved drugs; the war on poverty has its benefits to those fighting it, unfortunately not including those in poverty; so how is the war on global warming really any different? Look at who benefits by fighting these wars.
You talk about wars... and then try to lump in climatology/atmospheric physics with pushing war?? Do you hear yourself? Do you see what you're writing?? You dare completely IGNORE the very real wars for the oil/petroleum industry and then try to claim that... somehow... we're starting wars of profit for... anthropogenic global warming research?? Fucking insane. So... because major multinational/corporatist/capitalist business entities in the MARKET are trying to greenwash themselves and turn a profit off of bullshit "eco-friendly" measures, somehow that means that SCIENTISTS are part of this?? No, the scientists hate this just as much, if not MORE than the rest of us. Their hard work and serious alarms are being watered down and perverted, expediently brushed off by for-profit industry and politicians as a non-issue, but used as a greenwashing marketing mechanism by those same entities when it churns a profit. All the while, these same market/political entities are CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. Just because government/business is corrupt, doesn't make the actual SCIENCE corrupt. Science is largely SEPARATE from these worlds, thankfully. Government and business will use ANY EXCUSE THEY CAN (whether real or not) to gain power and/or wealth. They're opportunists. So they're going to do the same thing WITH or WITHOUT global warming. The actual science cannot be blamed for this AT ALL. Funny enough... the same "experts" that worked for the tobacco industry in order to downplay and deny the risks in smoking cigarettes (which we all now, finally know are terrible for your health) are now working for the global warming denial industry in order to downplay and deny the risks of global warming. That should make you question denial, not the actual science that proves anthropogenic global warming. The corruption on the denier side is clear, present, and proven. The corruption on the science side is ALWAYS speculative, exaggerated, misinterpreted, and specious; i.e. NONEXISTENT.
Conspiracies don't require collusion. They just require people who use the domain over which they have control to benefit themselves, and when those domains overlap what they are fighting doesn't need to be real; they just need to appear to be sufficiently real to carry on the war and the benefits that flow from the fight. It is all about fighting the war, not winning it.
Yes, they do. Here:
con·spir·a·cy noun \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\ : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal : the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal
There is no war, and there is no benefit to fighting against global warming deniers. All the deniers are doing is distracting the scientists, the scientists are NOT gaining from global warming. They're alarmed, and they've dedicated their life's study to understanding the world's climate and our impacts. They're not being bribed, that's not how grant money works, and they're not fighting a war; they're doing RESEARCH. It's MY (and others') job to fight the war, and I'm not getting paid, that's for fucking sure; but that doesn't matter, I gladly fight for the science because it's truth and we're facing serious consequences that are downplayed by some of the WORST people/businesses/organizations EVER TO EXIST (the fossil fuel industry and their political lackeys). Here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/The-Roadblocks/
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network