I am constantly berated for quoting industrial and conservative sources for information. These people have only their own interests in mind, so their data must be suspect at the very least, and outright lies at worst. Be that as it may.

What amazes me is that nobody considers the self-interested motivations of the "global warming" science community.

Global warming researchers get tens of millions of dollars a year from various government and international sources. It goes without saying that a scientist who says there is no problem is not going to be getting a very big chunk of this, while a scientist who says that he is on the track of a world-changing phenomenon is going to be picking up a lot more of it. A paid voice, you might say. Why are their motives not equally suspect? There's a lot more money in promoting global warming than there is in debunking it. And not just money. Certainly scientists who are "alarmist" get a lot more publicity than their more cautious counterparts. Try and remember the last news story headlined "Global Warming Not A Real Problem."

And that's just financial and egotistic motives. What about politics? Do the nations comprising the United Nations, currently in the vanguard of this movement, have anything to gain by cutting the United States off at the knees?

If you want to argue data, fine. If you want to argue about the data being suspect because someone has an axe to grind, better check your own side too.