Sadly for your conspiracy theory, their political agenda is based on the evidence supporting CO2 as the major driver, not the other way around. The scientists discovered the problem and advocate because they need the world's help to fix it.
Not quite. The support for the political agenda was based on computer model projections, not empirical evidence. The projections were spectacularly wrong (according to the University of Hamburg, 98 per cent of the models failed to predict the "pause").
The politicization of what is supposed to be science has become a huge problem. The IPCC's credibility problems have been well documented (I'm sure you don't need me to provide another round of links).
That is compounded by the fact most climate researchers never challenge some of the demonstrably wrong things said by the likes of Gore, Suzuki and even Barack Obama (
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/s...esidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0).
If you've never seen it, you should watch this Australian program with David Suzuki on live TV. There are some incredibly awkward moments when Suzuki is challenged by researchers who actually know the facts. Suzuki knows the talking points but is surprisingly ill-informed (at one point, he says he has never heard of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm).
The IPCC process is broken beyond repair. The argument that anyone who dares question the IPCC must be "anti-science" isn't working, and it isn't going to work.
I have previously proposed a fix, which I am happy to repeat.
If it is genuinely felt that there is a need for a body to gather research at an international level, then the IPCC should be abolished and replaced with a body that is committed to science and scientific evidence (wherever that evidence may lead).
Every effort should be made to try to keep that body free from biases or agendas. There should be no involvement from governments, environmental organizations, or anyone else who will taint the research process. Nor should there be efforts to try to silence or discourage research that doesn't suit desired outcomes.