We do since those emails came out in England with climate scientists discussing massaging the data to fit the ridiculous hockey stick rather than accepting errors.
And here is an article about NOAA changing temperature records to reflect its climate agenda.
noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
And contemporary science is about funding, not truth, as you are concerned with from what you have written.
It's about reducing the cost that future generations have to suffer and pay for us to keep living like we do - because like the US budget, their livelihoods are already deep in deficit. This is why I get angry when people drag their feet on this. It's not gonna be the boomers, or gen X who will have to deal with this. It might not even be my generation, but my generation's kids will definitely be living with our mistakes.
This is happening. If we don't take action it is deeply irresponsible and basically suicidal for our species - wait, maybe that's a good thing after all.
Nice emotional appeal there. Scare tactics are just do sweet in the cold area of logic and reason.
Hmm, the risk is so big that we must fuck up world economies and disrupt lives today..... Silly. Global cooling was the rage once. A new ice age. And since temps are not rising now, it is about climate change.
But again, are the solutions set forth the best? Or just bureaucratic and technocratic nightmares that will be yet another way to shove money to cronies, like we have seen for decades?
Much better to take less radical change and use a fraction of the money for improving real lives today.
I first became skeptical when I read that Dupont funded the efforts to ban CFCs 30 years ago. Its market share had declined from near monopoly to shut 2/3rds, so they funded environmental groups to lobby for a ban for their own product, and set up production of newer and inferior products.
The climate science field is politicized to no end. Heterodox opinions are isolated and punished. Truth no longer matters. Should Galileo have listened to the 97% of his day?
And the appeal to the idea of the 97% is a political argument, that science should not me decided on facts, but on politics. Might as well have a vote on the viability of space travel....
Politicized science is bad science. Fear tactics and scaremongering is a bad way to decide truth. Having to resort to such demonstrates dishonesty and lack of confidence in the position.
Let's look at politicized science in another area, food. For decades government nutrition guidelines have pushed low fat, high carb diets. Those that dissented from this were attacked. Today the official nutrition position is finally getting away from the false and heavily politicized science of the recent past.
So how did it get screwed up? Bad science, plus the easy way to confuse dietary fat with body fat in mind of many. And why? Because Big Grain and the farm lobby in the US took it and funded it and pushed an idea that became accepted science. Then the institutional effect took over and change is very slow. And people struggle to accept the new truth after being manipulated into a trance like state that struggles to see that the accepted science was wrong.
Eventually, after much political turmoil, I suspect high fructose corn syrup and soy products (which have invaded almost every manufactured food product in America) will also be seen for the bad they have caused. But it will be years in making.
I recently had an enlightening conversation with an expert in the field who confirmed my lay research on the subject of food.
I suspect one day people will look back and say "Wtf? Those people addressed climate change based upon bad science and political scaremongering."
For the OP and others that want to read the dissenting view, here is another website
Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Those scientists that dare speak up with doubt are attacked, creating an atmosphere much like the Spanish Inquisition. Look up Lennart Bengtsson if you doubt it. Michael Mann appears to be nothing more than a propagandist fraud, making money and power off his climate agenda, even suing a columnist for criticizing him, lol. And falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate because he submitted a paper to b the IPCC.... He did create the hockey stick model....
Again, I am all for reasonable environmental protection that makes economic sense and actually helps people. I would rather money be spent on sanitation and clean water and mosquito nets than politicized science. Cleaner air is a good thing. Clean water is as well. Increased solar use is great. Using more nuclear power makes sense (but too many environmentalists reject that).
But apocalyptic visions of global warming? The models have been wrong for years.....