Similarly, if AGW really is a credible threat then it too will be replicated in credible sources, here, reality. I think you need to accept at this point that most of the world simply won't go along with AGW mitigation. The US, BRIC, OPEC, etc just aren't interested enough in vague, hysterical predictions that seem to consistently overshoot reality.
Name a publication more credible than a top tier scientific journal or an institution more credible than a research University.
The hand that provides the funding is the hand that rules their world.
Who is this mysterious uber-powerful funding agency who has a vested interest in not burning fossil fuels?
And even so, you'd need climate change to be this strange impossible to prove or disprove phenomena that's impervious to science. Because otherwise doing serious research the truth couldn't help but come out. These aren't philosophers arguing abstract governments, these are scientists taking real measurements and performing actual calculations, they can't just make stuff up to appease a funding agency. Just look at drug research and how well they do with the horrible incentives and legitimately biased funding agencies.
And why aren't more climate scientists defecting and getting rich off the denialist circuit? Lots of them have tenure so they're safe and there's no shortage of conservative groups happy to pay them directly (and not just fund their research).