Note: I started drafting this piece a few days ago. I am very glad I waited to post it.
I got into a discussion with a guy who writes science columns for a newspaper in the comment section of another blog. He kept insisting that the preponderance of scientific evidence was proving that global warming is a reality, is caused by humans and is happening at an accelerating rate. I kept insisting that there still was no proof that man had anything to do with it yet.
It went on for a longish time by comment section standards, spanning several days. I kept telling him he needed to look into trying to follow the money. In other words, global warming is a business. Look at how many "climate change experts" there are right now? How many were there twenty years ago? All of these people's jobs depend on global warming. Do you honestly think they are being totally honest? They're paid to wail about global warming, they're paid to blame it on humans.
But some scientists are starting to push back. First came word that Canada was pulling out of Kyoto, at least partially because of a letter signed by 60 scientists. Now some of the media is starting to actually publish contrarian views.
I suspect it's about time to bring in Richard Lindzen MIT professor writing in the Opinion Journal.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
……..
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
UPDATE: Manolo has the upside to global warming.