The "Global Warming Conspiracy"

I've been rather curious about the global warming controversy after:
1) seeing Al Gore on the Daily Show a few days back talk about "An Inconvenient Truth"
2) observing how conservatives have a visceral distaste for the subject of human-induced global warming.

I therefore picked up a book called "Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints" published in 2002 and started reading it.

It's quite amazing.

On the one hand they have scientists telling of their findings on climate change due to the significant CO2 level increase in the past 100 years and the dire problems that a greater increase in CO2 would cause-- all in a very straight-forward and unemotional manner.

On the other hand, they have naysayers who claim that global warming is actually a HUGE CONSPIRACY being sold on the basis of bad science.

According to these people, the global warming conspiracy is actually run by Al Gore and goes something like this:
Gore wants to take away our way of life and restrict how much energy Americans use, restrict how much fossil fuels Americans can consume, because he and his fellow liberal politicians want to expand government control over everyone! And the scientists go along with this idea, putting out shoddy research to support global warming-- all for the grant money of course!

Now, as a matter of course, I have nothing against a good conspiracy theory.

But this one makes little sense to me, since there are a few problems with it:

1) I do not think that Gore wants to take away people's energy freedom (why would he, does this make any sense?)
2) I do not think it is true that liberals want big government to control everyone (that seems to be a conservative goal now, anyway).
3) Why would a politician propose something so patently unpopular unless they were truly serious about the issue?
4) Scientists, as a whole, simply do not operate this way (i.e. doing bad research to get grant money to support one point of view), and the vast majority of scientists are interested in the truth.
5) in fact, often going against the mainstream in science, helps you-- it is GOOD to buck the prevailing wisdom, as long as you have the data to back it up (granted there are always some scientists who go way beyond bucking conventional wisdom, and these people can get into trouble).

Basically, it seems to me-- the naysayers really come across more as partisan crankpots than as people who have serious scientific issues with global warming. And remember it is the big energy companies that are against the idea of global warming and they actively promote the copntrary view.

But big money is always on the side of good, right?

In any case, I think this brings up a good point: talking about a "conspiracy" should be secondary to real evidence of official conflicts, e.g. for 9/11. And I think this is generally the case for many good 9/11 researchers-- who focus on the evidence first without blaming the conspiracy on one person. The conspiracy should flow from the evidence not the other way around.

But ultimately, it is very amusing to see conservatives cook up and promote this huge conspiracy theory, but at the same time be comtemptuous of the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy-- especially when the evidence for 9/11 being a conspiracy is so strong and the conspiracy makes more sense. It is an amazing double-standard.

By the way, my view on global warming is that I am still open to the idea that CO2 doesn't cause global warming-- I need to do more research. On the other hand, given the extreme and catastrophic changes that will happen to the planet if global warming continues, I think it is only sensible to put in place some reasonable CO2 emission control measures.