I'd like to see evidence of that contention other than Gore and Hansen endlessly repeating it. Please post.
Every industry that profits from oil has an interest in the continued use of oil, and industry members do whatever they can to keep doing as they do now. They spend plenty of money on research with the specific goal of
disproving AGW, which they see as costing more money. They also spend lobbyist money to promote their oil-based agendas and obstruct any agenda they do not like. These are billions of dollars at stake. Exxon appears to be number one but Shell, Texaco, etc. are all actively spending in what they see as an investment in their future profit. They are decidedly more interested in that than the integrity of the science.
There is no industry comparably financially invested in
proving AGW. There is no solar giant or windpower giant out there competing with the oil giants for political influence. They are oppressed Davids against the favored Goliaths.
As far as the research money goes, the reasoning has a huge flaw. Is AGW not a legitimate issue for research? Because if it is, then it deserves research dollars. However, if the science being done is not tainted by exterior economic interest--which is clearly one-sided against AGW--then generally speaking there is no projected outcome, only aggregate hypothetical posits. Conversely, a general oppposition to funding more AGW research--which is often called for by "skeptics" whose true motive is always economic--suggests an attitude that the science is settled on
that side, which would involve a degree of hypocrisy (not that there isn't plenty to go around in this overheated issue).
If the contention is that grant money is given (by whom??) only to scientists that intend to prove AGW, that would be an issue, but I seriously doubt that contention and would need to see evidence of that. What's the motivation of so doing that would favor such scientists? Who stands to benefit on an economic level approaching that of oil-based industries?