Number one, I don't like to use the term "conspiracy" lightly. In science, pressure from peers, government grant issuers, financial incentives, and other pressures can steer things toward a particular viewpoint without any "conspiracy" being required. This is true of many things other than science. As just one example, in things like the movie industry, certain views tend to win awards and critical raves, while others don't. Interestingly, it often has little to do with how much audiences like a movie, or how much money it earns.

It has been obvious for quite a while that the scientific climate "consensus" was anything but unbiased, but "world domination," as far as most scientists are concerned, has little or nothing to do with it compared to the pressures mentioned above. So far, I've seen little in these e-mails about political goals. Most of it seems to be people defending a viewpoint past the line where it can still be called "science." This is not surprising, since many scientists have "bet the farm" on a particular point of view. Not a rare thing in many other areas of thinking either.

It's a different story for the national and international political entities enthusiastically pushing the "consensus" in a particular direction. Definitely all about the power, and when I'm discussing the issue, they're the ones I'm most worried about. The scientific community is just their cannon fodder.