What are the conspiracy theories about climate change?

Scientists manipulated results to keep their research funding

Question: What are the conspiracy theories about climate change?
Position1 of 5›: Climate change is a hoax by scientists
Argument‹2 of 2: Scientists manipulated results to keep their research funding

The argument

Climate scientists are given government grants to conduct research, sometimes up to millions of dollars. If they report back with urgency, claiming the climate is changing for the worse, they are more likely to receive more money in the future. Climate change must therefore be exaggerated or faked by scientists as part of a money making scam.

Premises

[P1]Climate scientists depend on government grants for their livelihoods and research programs. [P2] Reporting urgent and alarming climate findings increases the likelihood of receiving further funding. [P3] Researchers will exaggerate or fabricate results when doing so secures their continued funding. [C] Therefore, climate change is a hoax produced by scientists manipulating results to protect their funding.

Counter-arguments

Scientists earn much more money in oil companies than they do researching climate change. The government grants they are given, while seemingly a lot of money, are broken down into many parts, some for the university's facilities and administration, some to publish scientific papers (which can cost around $2000) some for graduate students, etc. Ultimately, the scientists themselves do not earn large sums of money from these grants.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Grant income is not personal income. Awards are administered by universities and consumed by facilities and administrative overheads, publication charges, equipment, fieldwork and graduate stipends; a researcher's salary is set by the institution and does not rise with the alarm of a finding. Scientists with these skills earn considerably more in the energy industry, which is the reverse of the incentive the premise describes. [Rejecting P2] Funding bodies award on method and significance, and null or reassuring results are published and funded routinely — several of the field's most cited papers are corrections that revised earlier estimates downward. A finding that genuinely overturned the consensus would be the most consequential result available in the discipline, and therefore the most rewarded, which inverts the incentive the premise relies on. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion requires a coordinated deception spanning tens of thousands of researchers across competing institutions and rival governments over several decades, in a profession where careers are built on refuting other people's work. It also cannot account for the measurements no funding body controls: satellite and radiosonde temperature records, sea-level and ice-mass observations, ocean heat content, shifting growing seasons and species ranges, and instrumental records maintained by national agencies in states with directly opposing political interests.