Easily debunked.

Here it is from logical science.

Flaw #1 - They don't want more climate research, they want the problem fixed. Climate Scientists have nothing to gain from fixing the problem.
The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem. Climate scientists simply do not have the expertise and training to develop nuclear fusion, the next generation of solar panels, or other forms of alternative energy. If we develop those technologies then money would go to people who have nothing to do with climate research. Climatologists also aren't in the position to benefit from carbon taxes. So this argument has some serious flaws.


'I do not lobby for more climate funding. If you ask anyone who has actually interviewed me, they will say that what I say is "We don't need more research money to deal with the issue as to what needs to be done. ".
Andrew Weaver Ph.D.

Flaw #2 - It's not just scientists.
There some real heavyweights in industry that say the problem is obvious. Shell, British Petroleum, Walmart, DuPont, Cinergy, Swiss Re, and many more agree climate change is happening..

Flaw #3 -
There simply isn't a lot of money in science
Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well. Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living. Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay.


"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money.... The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.


"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.


If this is a scam, then why are all of these people in on it? The best scientists from 18 countries are saying the exact same thing. Countless CEO's from Fortune 500 insurance companies to even oil companies such as BP are also saying man made global warming is real. If this is a scam, it is the most prolific scam in history.

Flaw #4 - There are far better ways of getting grant money
If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers." That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement are saying. They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action. They are not stalling for more funding.

Flaw #5 - Scientists are competitive. It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.
Each individual scientist must compete for funding. The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong. It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments. The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence.

Flaw #5 - Scientists aren't exactly organized
In order to perform a worldwide consipiracy you would have to organize every individual scientist in the planet. This simply isn't possible given that most research scientists do their own fundraising and the sheer numbers of individual scientists.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skepti...s/funding.html