Scientists are also paid to disprove it, so I really don't think that's an argument for the sceptics. You are given a hypothesis and then produce credible research findings that either proves or disproves that theory. It's just business. There isn't much research being funded unless there is a perceived financial benefit to the body funding the research. Governments need to know if there's a link and how it will effect the global economy and what should we be doing, if anything, to reduce any detrimental outcomes. Climatologists have been around for centuries and it's in our interests to fund these people if there could be a link between our increased emissions and global warming. There's a lot at stake and the debate will continue for years, that's the nature of the beast. If it wasn't for these people we'd still think the Earth was flat and be picking our lunch off the nearest tree. But then you could argue that the planet would be better off.

I also noticed that most people are talking about CO2. I read an article a few days back, that also talks about Nitrous Oxide (N20), which has 296 times the effect of CO2 on the greenhouse effect - I'm not laughing

Also bear in mind that scientists are normally paid by Universities or other publicy funded research bodies and therefore they make no money from the research grants themselves. As I have pointed out on other threads, no-one suggests that researchers into medical conditions (heart disease or cancer) are somehow biased.

Of course if funding is going to be mentioned, it would only be fair to mention the billions of dollars which Exxon Mobil (worlds biggest petrochem co) has spent in funding Global Warming denial groups.