This argument of "all scientists will not tell the truth" has about as much credibility as a conspiracy theory as 9/11 being an inside job.
All scientists aren't involved. Aggregation of paleoclimate data, for example, is done by a few, publicly funded organizations.
Riiiggghhttt. Do you even know how the carbon life cycle is studied?
Like blind men studying an elephant. Too much remains unknown about where carbon comes from and goes.
And what is being protected? It is the political influence of big carbon.
There was a recent proposal for a climate change "reparations" fund. They were hoping to eventually fund it at about $100 billion a year. That alone would probably be on the order of the total global profits from "Big Carbon" in an average year.
There are also substantial amounts spent on CO2 emission markets, renewable energy development and subsidy, and development of electric cars and related technologies. I would say that it is on the order of tens of billions per year. So what am I to think of the scientific prowess of someone who only pays attention to one part of a problem?
The actual economic impact of doing something about climate change is negligible at most.
For someone who claims to work in science, you are remarkably confident about your opinions.
There is empirical data for that as well, but I suppose all the economists are lying to, right?
Maybe you don't actually work in science and just pretend to on Slashdot. There isn't empirical data to support your claim. For example, electric power and transportation costs (for corresponding types of transportation, cars compared to cars) are more expensive in areas that have severely restricted or taxed use of fossil fuels than in areas that haven't.
Second, there is ample evidence for the claim that interfering with an economy by making it less efficient has costs. These costs increase as the degree and extent of the interference increases. Monkeying around with the energy and transportation infrastructure for the world is not going to be a negligible impact. I think it immensely foolish to insist otherwise.
In favor of AGW is the claim that there are global scale externalities which would also be a form of economic inefficiency. The problem with that claim is that the degree of these costs seems rather low. I think it reasonable to insist that we demonstrate that AGW has these costs first before we plunge into widespread mitigation of AGW. The people who claim to be in favor of the "science" don't seem interested.