...and finally..

Actually, ICI would be a lot more credible than Exxon Mobil.

Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

Two other links of interest are -

Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.ht
ml

List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).

Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp

There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.