No. They aren't that clever. It's a compelling narrative that man is somehow destroying the planet with fossil fuels. It had an airing in the ice age scare and the acid rain scare and now the global warming scare. But the absolute worst thing you can do is set up an institute - or in this case several hundred - whose only aim is to investigate the harmful effects of something that has not even been established. If the scientists had been guaranteed employment for investigating the role of natural variation too then the science would not have been so tainted with blatant opportunism. Politicians accidentally forced the agenda by their unrelenting and inexhaustible (one might even say sustainable) resources of rank stupidity. They got what they paid for but not necessarily what they wanted. The biggest stakeholders (Mr & Mrs Taxpayer) have not yet had their say because they don't yet realise just how much of their money is being sunk into this black hole.

It can hardly be a conspiracy if you tell everybody what you want to do and why, and then set about doing it. There is a conspiracy in there, which is the child of the objectives and that's to have world government for environmental issues. And it was a sweet move to start the IPCC with the sole objective of proving human emissions were a danger to the planet. Otherwise I think James nailed it.

The UN see climate change as the vehicle for justifying a degree of world governance with global taxation to enable the redistribution of wealth from the rich, who allegedly pollute, to the poor who suffer the consequences. The deputy leader of the IPCC admitted this publicly several years ago.

Greens worldwide obviously support all these initiatives but are maybe driven more by a hatred of industry and what others may regard as essential commodities for modern life such as heating, lighting, clean water and food.

Governments are hugely supportive of alarmism for three reasons. They see the opportunity for more control through legislation and significantly more taxation all with the blessing of a worried public. They also see an opportunity to demonstrate that they are more green than rivals by doing even more control and taxation.

Businessmen can make a fortune through the skewed energy market, feed in tariffs and a myriad of green initiatives funded by the taxpayer. Quangos flourish.

The academics who started the whole thing are rewarded with funding, power and global recognition.

So, the pattern emerging is that a large number of organisations benefit hugely, literally at the expense of the taxpayer who has to pick up the tab while observing massive waste and the destruction of energy security, industry and the economy.

This strange alliance of moneymen, greens and leftwingers are well practised at controlling NGOs and pressure groups. It is in their interest to press the government further in the current direction. The government, being a mixture of moneymen and people without a scientific cell in their bodies give in to the pressure through greed and ignorance respectively.

Saving the planet appeals to the left leaning academic elite and there seems to be a fashionable social dimension to all of this. I don't see a conspiracy as such, but a huge opportunity to further a number of agendas, many of them at high ultimate cost to the taxpayer. I don't see much benefit to the environment either.

"... isn't it possible that some inner circle saw the possibility of much greater power, and unjust profits, for themselves, and has never given a damn about improving or safeguarding the environment?"

I am preparing a little billet doux for my wife's cousin on the global warming issue ( I may ask you to review it for me if you wouldn't mind,if I ever finish it) and I deal with this issue (briefly because I don't want it to be boring), and to some extent you're right. The three drivers, or "forcings" for this scare are, in no particular order, the Club of Rome, UNEP and the environmentalists. All three have the same "conspiracy" and are Malthusians who want to stop growth and reduce population. I put conspiracy in inverted commas because there's nothing secret about their intentions. UNEP wants to use money from the developed world to bring about equity (which means basically that, apart from the elite bureaucrats of UNEP, and the Great and the Good of the Club of Rome and its offshoots, everyone in the world have to wear Chairman Mao suits and eat a diet of rice and vegetables and have their life regulated by "omniescient busy bodies" (C S Lewis)).

I believe the global warming came about because of some sort of breakdown suffered by an eminent scientist who then persuaded some politicians and bureaucrats in the US that it was true. For UNEP, the Club of Rome and environmental groups it was the chance of a life time to impose their views on the majority and they've grabbed it with both hands.

Flattered by the money and attention the climate scientists were only too willing to go along with it uncritically, and those who did criticise were quickly isolated in the community, or ostracised. Luck is said to be a combination of planning and opportunity and that's what I think happened here for the Greenies and they grabbed the opportunity with both hands years before any of us woke up to what was going on.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

At the official level, would you call normal diplomatic tooing and froing conspiracy? Friendly governments are always exchanging intelligence about matters of mutual interest and you would probably call that diplomacy. Maybe nowadays you could get at what is going on using the FOI legislation.

Things look a little different outside officialdom. Mostly, in the climate wars, you are then looking at Greenpeace, FOE and other so called charities, and some businesses.

So if charities and businesses exchange views, tactical proposals and the like on the climate wars, are they conspiring? It is certainly tempting to say yes. But the charities and businesses actually do no more than your average government does every day (week, month) and calls diplomacy.

So what would make such communications conspiracy in the eye of the man in the street? Attempts to conceal what went on would do the trick certainly, and there seems little doubt that some things discussed have been kept out of the public domain. Also, covert communication between government, or more likely people either in or close to government, and charities and businesses would seem to fit the bill, particularly if they are off the record and effectively beyond the reach of FOI enquiries. So to these extents there's no doubt there has been some conspiring. Whether these conspiracies actually have had a significant effect on the climate war can hardly be known given the fact that we do not actually know what it was that was both said and concealed and therefore amounted to conspiracy.

The result has been that there has been much conjecture. While some of the deductions have been easy to believe others have been as believable as the story that World Trade Centre was brought down by the CIA, but have nevertheless been substantiated. But no doubt some of the conjecture has been plain wrong.

And there is another point. Material discussed in conspiracies is usually, by its very nature, vague and ill defined and of limited value in discussions and decisions that depend upon firm facts and science. So only of value in the politics of the matter.

So is Dung's point significant?