As an scientist, I have to say that the lack of a single link to a peer-reviewed academic journal in this entire thread is pretty indicative of the problem with the relationship between scientists and everyone else.

There is, unquestionably, corruption in research science. That is what makes peer-reviewed publication such a vital component in maintaining the integrity of the scientific community. It's easy to pay off a handful of scientists and almost impossible to buy off a majority. Fortunately, at the end of the day, scientific claims must be supported by convincing evidence. With a lack of such evidence, the community will turn on specious claims like a school of hungry piranha.

While it is nice to have opinions, it is also important to respect expertise. I know a lot about mathematical modeling, but very, very little about climatology. Therefore, I am forced, as a reasonable person, to defer to those who have dedicated decades of study to the topic at hand. If the climatology community says there is sufficient evidence to support the claim of man made climate change, then it is the very definition of hubris for me to think that I have sufficient expertise to gain say them, just on the basis of a few articles posted on the internet.