Re: Here we have
Disclosure: I think AGW (anthropic global warming) is probably real. I think the solution with be geo-engineering rather than going back to an agrarian culture, or reducing population by 40%.
There is money talking on both sides. The AGW mob have (generally ) more dedicated zealots who lie because they care. The non AGW mob have more money, and more willingness to defend the money.
I think characterising the AGW lot as money grubbing because they are paid is an ad hominem attack which reflects more on how the attacker views the world than those they are attacking. However some of the AGW lot are crap scientists despite making their living doing that, because they 'interpret' data which is of insufficient quality and quantity to be reliably interpreted, and make unwarranted (not necessarily incorrect, but insufficiently robust) assertions.
That the issue is 'nothing less than crucial to the future of humanity' is completely irrelevant. That humanity finds it perfectly sensible to take a 'precautionary principle' approach to genetic modification, and yet finds nothing weird about conducting a global experiment on the very habitat we need is simply an example of why we are all such interesting conversationalists, and generally crap logicians.
To address Mad Mike's point that I am answering - whilst at the same time making my own point about the quality of the debate;
You attack the previous poster for quoting numbers without references, and then without references say 'yeah, but they don't care anyway' - in your opinion. At least the numbers are checkable (or uncheckable - in which case call BS) - whereas your assertion that power companies are unthreatened by tax rises and AGW furore is simply that, an assertion, and frankly not a very credible one.
Your sister may be an excellent scientist, and she may be well aware of her terms of employment, but that is purely empirical data with no reference point. Again, useless for furthering debate.
Finally - my own assertions are entirely opinion (except when they aren't), and I have done no fact checking whatsoever, but at least I already know this, and won't get upset when someone (hopefully) points it out.