So what you're saying is that there aren't any scientists that do good, unbiased work..is that correct? Professionals trained in the field are somehow inept and it's the basement science nerds that will crawl out of their parent's basements and save the world from tomfoolery right? Is this a Hollywood flick? lol
I'm saying that academics depend on grants.
Their professional careers are built around being able to secure and use govt grants. And the govt controls about 100% of the money going into university-level research.
The problem is the scientific method is simply not being used here.
There is no way that the last 130 years of temperature data proves anything meaningful about the overall health and long-term suitability of our climate.
That's just one of the problems. There are many others:
-The "climate models" do not predict anything involving cold events. They cannot explain or predict anything about ice ages.
-Those models don't handle factors like cloud cover-at all.
-They don't handle unusual events like volcano eruptions or an asteroid or comet impact. If those type events were plugged into models we use now, the Earth would instantly become Venus. Obviously, we are still here, so they don't work for that either.
-The models don't factor in:
Variable solar activity
Ocean current/salinity/temperature changes (the conveyor.)
These are just a few of the issues I can think of off the top of my head.
Main point is the scientific method demands that researchers take in all evidence and create a hypothesis to explain things. This would create a model which would work on all scales, and would not selectively "work" for certain observations, but not others.
In sum-the entire area of research is completely corrupted by politics/money. None of the research can be trusted.