In commenting on climate change, I have generally stayed away from the "coming world government" argument, from any talk of conspiracies, from stating that lefties are just trying to create bureaucracies to run our lives. For that matter, I've avoided saying temperature changes are caused primarily by the sun.
However, there are some plausible answers to the question: why would reputable people so strongly endorse the AGW theory unless there were substantial evidence that it was true?
One answer is that there is a hell of a lot more money in saying warming is here, it's man-made, and it's going to get a lot worse, than in merely saying this is all uncertain.
Richard North explains how attempts to save the Amazon in some pure form, regardless of what might benefit indigenous people, is wrapped up with pseudo-scientific claims that almost any significant climate change is likely to destroy much of the Amazon, and all of this is tied to a potentially very lucrative carbon trading scheme.
If the argument about "Big Oil" and skepticism is that money can corrupt and shape opinions, then how about the money on the warming side? North is also adding up the EU and other grants that have been given to the warming side ....