That doesn't make sense, TB. It has been repeatedly documented that established regulatory agencies will resist changes that will make them obsolete, or reduce their power and influence. People fight for their careers, it is natural, and they usually manage to convince themselves they are acting out of selfless motives when they do so.

So do businesses, for that matter. Oil companies reflexively fight policies that will discourage oil consumption, just as anti air pollution agencies tend to keep growing and regulating even as emissions diminish due to prior successful regulation.

Believe me. I AM a government bureaucrat, and although I'm willing to concede we may be just as greedy as businessmen, we are not that clever or far-seeing. Regulatory agencies respond to a problem perceived by the public or political sector. The problem may be exaggerated, or the response inappropriate, but it is not maliciously devised.

Likewise, a business may delude itself and the public in order to to keep a dangerous but profitable product on the market, but businesses don't deliberately set out to create dangerous products. To accuse them of doing that is just as unrealistic and unfair as the government cabal you suggest is working behind the scenes on the other side.

If you really think that there is a coordinated campaign by bureaucrats to deliberately create a bogus regulatory need, from scratch, just to allow them to erect massive bureaucracies so they can get rich and powerful, you are either succumbing to paranoia, or just attempting to devise a justification for your personal campaign against anything that inconveniences the private sector.

Your position that the global warming scenario is exaggerated, or that it is based on poor science, is not an unreasonable one. But your attempts to find a criminal conspiracy lurking at its root is ridiculous.