I still don't get it. You say that (a) a few fraudulent scientists are acting as a gateway to bad data, and (b) I can look at the data and see for myself. It seems to me that, if I can look at data, numerous other scientists can too. Most of these are going to be honest (since most scientists are honest), and many are going to see the opportunity to write a paper that gets them some attention.
Scientists are writing papers that point out that the Global Warming consensus is wrong. They get labelled as "deniers". This is a classic tactic of the political Left and their allies (of which the environmental movement is an undeniable part), the tactic is: "Do not address the facts, but slander the message bringer".
For example, Richard Lindzen of *MIT* finds the IPCC report "hilarious":
"You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."
What matters is not whether there is or is not global warming. What matters is that a particular political view (which in this case, happens to come from the Left; but would be just as wrong as if it had come from the Right) is trumping science. The [Cultural Marxist] Politically Correct view is that there is Global Warming. Now that the evidence is against Global Warming there is no big pronouncement that the models were wrong. Instead, the Politically Correct terms is changed to the scientifically meaningless "Climate Change" (nb: the climate is *always* changing - being alarmist about this natural and normal process is anti-scientific, and well, political).
So, unless you can explain my observations of the scientific community, I'm going to continue to accept its consensus.
As you wish, but understand this is a *political* decision, and not based on the observed data. Like I said, look at that lovely sinusoid - alone it is enough to *destroy* the Global Warming hoax): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/nasa-spokesman-reacts-to-the-spectacular-growth-in-arctic-ice/
And there are plenty more predictions of the Global Warming Theory that have not met observation (eg. *zero* hurricanes in the US in the last season; global warming theory predicted larger and more frequent hurricanes; then there was a record number of states in the US that had below average winter temperatures; then we have both the Arctic and Antarctica putting on more ice; sure, we have variability like my own New Zealand having a very warm winter this year - but one year is natural variation. When it is 15 years without global warming that is a trend.
A scientist must change their position based on *all* the observations. If the observations were for global warming I'd be more than happy to promote this theory. I have nothing ideological nor political against global warming theory. All I can say is that there are significant sets of observations that are against global warming - that means the theory cannot be accepted as is. Then I couple that with the fact that it is now known that scientists have been manipulating data (indicating that their case is very weak). That leads me to conclude Global Warming is, at best, an unproven and weak theory - and there is a higher statistical probability that the null hypothesis (no warming) is correct than the probability that warming is happening (when evaluating the untampered data). Consensus doesn't enter it.
Finally, to address you real question (sorry I didn't get to it yet). Please consider what happens to those scientists (particularly the grad researchers) who do put their head above the parapet and question global warming? they get shot. Look at famous naturalist David Bellamy who was fired for questioning global warming - after decades of service and a high TV profile. Shot down. As I said, the global warming movement is political, not scientific. That's why political measures are used to silence critics rather than robust scientific debate.
If you really want to scratch the surface of what is going on then you can start to get an inkling if you look at the "Cultural Marxism" video on YouTube. There are many things in the video I don't care for (eg. I'm a rationalist and atheist, so religious sentiments mean nothing to me), but it is a good introduction to the movement's origins. It is Cultural Marxism that is underlying the modern environmental movement (sure, there are layers above this, but this is the driving force behind the politicization of it).
many scientists have their salaries (many are tenured professors, for example),
Tenure merely means you can personally eat. Research grants are required to have a decent lab, lab equipment, field trips, grad students, etc. It is grants that matter. And it's hard to get grants if you go against political orthodoxy - particularly one so viciously fought as this.
I'm doing sort of a meta-scientific analysis here to see if it's worth my time to look at your data.
Huh? it takes 60 seconds to look at and analyse that sinusoidal graph of ice cover in the Arctic as published by the Danish center for ocean and ice (original link: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php). Since Arctic Ice cover is the *litmus test* of AGW then I'm surprised that you would not consider *as much time as was needed* to view and understand what the graph is telling you. That's what a real *scientist* would do. I'm afraid you will burn your scientific street cred making statements like that. We're all busy men, but getting to the truth is worth spending time on (fortunately, it will only take you 60 seconds to look and understand how the Danish data destroys the obsolete AGW meme).