You know, the ones who benefit from the tenfold increase in spending on the subject over the past 15 years. Who figured out they get their grant money requests rubber stamped when they come to a certain finding, and denied when they come in with another one."
That leads right back to the politicians who decide that a lot of money should be spent on "global warming", to the detriment of other research. Because of the politicians' earmarking of funds for "global warming" research, many scientists throw a sentence or two about global warming into their grant applications, even when the research has nothing to do with climate. When it comes to publishing results, these same scientists will explain their results and interpretations of the data fairly accurately, but then throw in the words "because of global warming" to tie their work in with that fraud.
So far, the vast majority of papers that I have seen that supposedly "prove" global warming are those that toss in the throw-away phrase "because of global warming." I have actually not seen any papers that test the hypothesis; in order to establish the validity of a hypothesis, it *must* be rigorously tested. I have not seen anything that definitively establishes that changing CO2 levels change the global climate. And I am a scientist. A life scientist--but I can still read papers in other fields.