If you're suggesting that the researchers are biased to fudge results to guarantee funding so they can continue fudging results, you're mistaken.

a) Most grants are overseen by the institution the researcher is affiliated to.
b) All published literature is subject to peer review. If there is a conspiracy, its beyond reasonable belief. This by the way is also why i'm not so concerned about industry funding in this particular area. Biased research is still policed.
c) Climate modeling funding has gone up because the sophisitication of the tools available has gone up and made the field bigger. Its not purely a consequence of being concerned about global warming. I'd wager that global warming isnt even the largest field of research in climate modeling.
d) If geophysical fluid dynamics as a whole became obsolete, those scientist could shift focus to other problems very easily. The most common fluids and thermodynamics models can be nondimensionalized and follow scaling laws that allow them to be applied to wide variety of problems. An expert in modeling is an expert in a pretty wide area of applications. The domain knowledge (parameters etc) is really not that hard to pick up.

I agree that a conspiracy of this type is about as likely as a conspiracy by the US gov't to blow up the towers on 9/11.

And yes, BP makes "green" commercials. BFD. So did Exxon, especially right after the Valdez disaster. Doesn't mean they actually give a crap about the environment. They just want to make it seem like they do, for PR reasons.

Beavis, I don't think you understand the academic mind-set. If there is a bias among academics, it's for doing things that surprise everybody. If you were a young scientist and could do new research to prove that global warming was not man-made, that would be a massive career-booster. You'd have it made. You'd have your pick of a job in pretty much any university, plus tons of money in grants and consulting fees from oil/gas companies.

btw, I dont think most scientists and the people that study this believe the most outlandish assessments. but they dont put half the effort into debunking the 40feet sea level rise predictions as they do attacking those that are critical of the subject.

if the hype were dropped down a few notches I think much of the push back would fade away.