So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.
As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.
I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.
The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source