I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big oil and gas interests are pushing efforts to convince the public AGW isn't real even though it possibly is. I also don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big government is lying out their ass for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I saw a debate between a climate scientist that believes AGW is real and some prominent skeptic, I forget his name. Basically the debate eventually came to "We can't say for certain that either of us is right or wrong."
So where do we go from there? I don't know. It really would suck if it's true and we don't take it seriously.
Pascal's Wager comes to mind.
Since Exxon has already been sued for securities fraud on the basis that they’ve sort-peddled AGW, whereas Thomas Mann and the other conspirators at East Anglia who cooked the temperature data to create false evidence of a temperature increase have not even been publicly censured, let alone prosecuted for fraud, since the predictions of the AGW adherents have consistently failed, and since the climate models all have to be manually pushed beyond the point of reasonable assumptions to generate AGW based on human emissions, the possibility you speak of is very remote, whereas the possibility of outright fraud by the adherents of AGW is demonstrably true.
Furthermore, based on temperature data across eons of time, the climate should be warming based solely on the principle of regression to the mean, since the Earth is still colder than the mean when measured over eons.
The missing link - and the whole ball of wax - is the fact that there is nothing with any great certainty that ties global warming, or other climate changes, primarily to human activity.
In other words, the fly in the ointment isn’t the ‘GW’, it’s the ‘A’.
So, you can hypothesize all you want, but reality doesn’t seem to be in agreement with your hypothesis.