I don't think that's true. There are rewards for following the crowd, but there are much greater rewards for coming up with something new.
This is how academic careers are made: 1) bright young thing comes up with a clever new idea (plus supporting evidence, of course) that cuts off their teacher's work at the knees, 2) gets it in a good journal (journals are eager to be the first to publish an exciting new idea, though also wary of looking foolish, hence the need for evidence), 3) is offered a post at a research institute to push their idea, 4) attracts a group of co-researchers, pulls in grant money ... 5) successful academic. This is not uncommon, this is how every head of department in every field got their job. Medical research (my field) operates exactly like this and, judging by the state of modern medicine, more or less works.
AGW has been talked about for 120 years and has been a topic of serious research for more than 50. In all that time, not one bright young thing has been able to come up with a serious alternative explanation for our observed rising CO2 and observed rising temperatures.
Science is never finally settled, of course, but it's looking like AGW has, like tobacco-cancer, tipped over from a likely hypothesis to as-good-as-proved.
I understand many people have a very strong dislike of things like carbon taxes. But attacking the science is probably a dead-end --- in my opinion, opponents would do better to shift their focus to the political question of whether carbon taxes would be effective or even necessary. Leave the hard-working scientists alone.