AGW and evolution are two different things.
AGW and gravity are two different things.
AGW and plate tectonic theory are two different things.
AGW and (insert name of actual scientific discovery) are two different things.
I don't care one whit about your online presence, Neil. You haven't published a scientific paper at all about AGW, so by your own rules, you should quit talking about AGW.
I am not being paid one red cent by "interested parties" or any other bugaboo phantom you care to mention. Your high priests, on the other hand, are making tons of money off of useful idiots who continually press the "I Believe in AGW" button regardless of the evidence against AGW.
Your continually presenting one episode of a television show as proof of AGW implies that you are unable to actually debate AGW on its merits. Likewise your continued pleas to authority. Likewise your your emotional pleas. Likewise your subtle and not-so-subtle belittling of AGW skeptics as "deniers." This is not how one would go about defending a workable, credible scientific theory, but it is a way to defend a religious belief.
Against
the catastrophic AGW fraud unearthed at the University of East Anglia (one of only two official inputs to the IPCC report), against
the discrediting of Michael Mann (creator of the
infamously wrong "Hockey Stick" graph supposedly proving AGW), against evidence
showing the cryosphere is actually growing since 2007, against
one of AGW's own proponents admitting that the Earth hadn't warmed since 1995, and
against engineering-level calculations showing that temperatures would not rise as much as predicted by AGW even in a worst case scenario, you choose to belittle us skeptics anyway.
Oh, and it doesn't need a conspiracy to push a bad idea. Galileo, for instance, was
persecuted by the Catholic Church for the high crime of stating that the Earth somehow revolved around the Sun. Once a wrong religious belief becomes accepted, it takes a lot of effort to discredit it.