You did a pretty good job of attempted character assassination.

Intentionally, as introduced by "Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...."--the use of that tactic as well as the general obfuscatory tactics of those who "make it their's life's crusade to attack the consensus on global warming" has become part of the issue, and now has to be factored in to any discussion of the subject.

Among the links found by the Google search was the link to the article gb's citing, so regardless of the quality of his links, I found it and read it.

Noting that Exxon-Mobil donates to organizations not engaged in denying the human contribution (i.e., Exxon-Mobil's contribution) to climate change is just another obfuscatory tactic. So? Do they donate equal amounts to researchers who've concluded that there is a causal relationship? Gosh, I'll bet not. The document to which you linked says that EM gave $6.5M in the category "Environment" (or about 1/10,000 of its quarterly profit), but since the details aren't categorized, it's hard to figure out where the money went. Many of the names I recognize as, or they suggest, RightWing causes; no sign of anybody who might take a view opposed to Exxon-Mobil's economic interests. So your point would be what, exactly?

The comprehension gap I can't seem to get past around here is that both sides are pressured to tell their benefactors what they want to hear.

You say that as if it were a fact. There's been a mountain of evidence suggesting improper influence on people whose results support anthropic climate change (e.g. Hansen at NASA), and a nearly 100% correlation between denialists and corporate sponsorship by polluters. Want to share your evidence for the same level of influence on the other side of the debate?