You are kidding, right? You've never heard someone use a term like "alarmist", "warmist" or "true believer" applied to those who accept the evidence for AGW?
But it is one thing to suggest that a scientist's work might be influenced by who's financing the work. It's quite another to suggest, as this article did, that scientists would delibratly concoct a hoax just to secure more funding.
And if it really were the case that scientists are fabricating scares for a few million pounds, why are thry not also fabricating reasuuring theories to secure funding from those with an interest in maintaining the status quo?
If only there was some organization on the other side that could afford that sort of money. They'd easily be able to get scientists to produce the results they wanted.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=climate+change+ze...