Climate change denialist mercenaries

Some conservatives argue that not only is climate change a fiction, but a conspiracy. Governments and the UN have allegedly co-opted nearly every single climate scientist in the world to betray their understanding of the facts and say that climate change is both real and made worse by human activity. No mention of scientists employed by universities, interestingly enough.

Scientists who attend UN conferences can not be objective, it is argued, because their funding depends on the existence of a perceived crisis. (Private-sector have no such conflict of interest, we're to believe). I suppose by this logic, one could argue that any intelligence coming out of the CIA, say about Iran's nuclear program, is inherently discredited because if there were no perceived national security threats, we wouldn't need a CIA.

But while there's no evidence that university or government scientists are distorting their own information, there is evidence that a think tank funded by ExxonMobil is paying scientists $10,000 each (plus travel expenses) to undermine a international climate change report due to come out today. And there have been long standing accusations that the Bush administration is interfering in scientific research for political reasons.

So to recap: despite government pressure, most scientists still find overwhelming evidence of man-aggravated climate change. The principal exceptions: those handsomely paid by Big Oil.

Clarification: Just because climate change skeptics are in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be completely ignored. Galileo was once in a tiny minority after all. However, I'd be less dubious if the opposition to the human-aggravated global theory were a little more concrete. Much of the opposition I've read about is based on impressions and general history. I am aware that the Earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles but I have a hard time believe the world's top climate scientists aren't aware of this and haven't taken this into account. Some insist categorically that the effect of climate is being exaggerrated but don't explain why. When fact/research-based arguments are countered only by impressions, the fact/research-based argument is usually going to be seen as more credible. If the fact/research-based research is systematically discredited by a fact-based dismantling, that's a different question. I don't have any problem with this theory being held up to scrutiny, so long as it's substantative scientific scrutiny, not gut feelings or politicoideological objections. Not all climate change skeptics are mercenaries but I'll have a hard time taking seriously any of them who are paid by ExxonMobil.