So, you think the jury is still out? Oh, I see that you're new here. We can change that if you have a logical thinking brain.
As for funding for the Center, here is their position.
As a 501(c)(3) public charity, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations to fund its educational activities. All donations are kept confidential. Please consider supporting the Center so access to CO2 Science Magazine can remain free to everyone.
Where does GreenPeace get it's funding? Club Sierra? WWF? PBS? NPR? PeTA? Will any of them tell you where the bulk of their funding comes from? Didn't think so. Do you really want to know?
Let me just say that I have more respect for mainstream science that you do, and in mainstream science, the jury is still out. The mainstream scientific consensus is that global warming is real, which the article here appears to affirm, but that it is not yet clear that global warming is human-caused. That is also clear from the article.
It is normal in scientific research to disclose any conflict of interest (such as funding from parties that would benefit from the publication of your work). These people do not disclose to whom they are beholden; I think that's reasonable grounds to be wary of them. I therefore don't think I'm guilty of the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
Where does the Sierra Club et al get its funding? That wasn't under discussion here. The issue here is not the Sierra Club vs. the CO2 Science Institute. It is mainstream science vs. the CO2 Science Institute. Again, I'm hesitant to take the work of what might be the coal and petroleum industry's Tobacco Institute against the hundreds of academic mathematicians, climatologists, geophysicists, astronomers, etc.; who have arrived at a consensus that anthropogenic climate change may be real.