Funding drives findings

What I hate most about this claim is that the conspiracy theorists think it makes perfect sense to use this argument to explain why the global warming "hoax" exists, yet they can't seem to explain how it is any different from what would be expected if it were *not* a hoax.

That is, if global warming is indeed a real problem, isn't it natural we would want to spend some extra money researching it? Or to put it another way, does it really make sense that we would not give money to scientists who are telling the truth about a real life problem? That's really what the argument boils down to.

That's an excellent point Dawei.  And why aren't scientists in other fields making these "alarmist" claims?  Why aren't astrophysicists claiming there's a massive asteroid heading our way, or biologists claiming there's a series of deadly diseases that they need to find a cure for?  Why is this alarmism for the benefit of funding limited to climate scientists?

And how did climate scientists in the decades before global warming was in the public consciousness get funding?

And my favorite counter-argument, why aren't the skeptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer calling out this fraud?  They disagree with some aspect of the AGW science, but they don't claim it's all a massive hoax.

And as you note, industry-funded science is very lucrative.  Guys like Dennis Avery and Fred Singer seem to do just fine financially even though they don't do any peer-reviewed studies.