Do you really think that the vast majority of climate scientists from around the world are falsifying science for the sake of money
Nope. No one does. That is just a far too simple representation of what is going on. What is going on is subtle and actually quite understandable, and it has hit many scientists over the ages, in virtually any field of science. And not even science: any research is potentially victim of this. Let me explain:
Science is based on so called 'hypotheses'. Generally these hypotheses are proved or disproved based on observations/measurements/math or whatever method is appropriate. This is how science has worked for the past hundreds of years. Under normal circumstances, an unbiased scientist should arrive at the correct concluson for his researched hypothesis. The problem arises when a scientist is no longer unbiased. Once a scientist 'believes' his hypothesis too much, he is willing to look at his data in 'new and innovative' ways to prove he is right. This is good. That's how science works. However, there is a pitfall, best expressed in a saying: "If you torture your data long enough, it will, in the end, confess". This means that there will often be a way to present data in such a way that it LOOKS like the hypothesis is correct, but it really isn't. Of course there are many ways of looking at the same dataset that say otherwise, but when a scientist is biased this is likely to be ignored. The result is a scientific paper that looks solid, but really isn't. It is VERY difficult to verify such a paper, without actually repeating it and especially without access to the raw data (this raw data is suspiciously difficult to come by for climate-science, so it seems. The general tendency seems to be that 'to avoid confusion' the data is not supplied by the scientist, making verficiation of a paper virtually impossible) .
It also is the case that in the media and politically there is some kind of 'concensus' that man-made warming is a indisputable fact. On schools and science institutes young people are indoctriated very early with this 'fact'. Also, it is in many countries professionally very unhealthy to be openly critical on the assumption of man-made warming. Even in the Netherlands, where I live, there have been ample recorded cases where people's careers were hindered by political views of others, ending their job or throttling funds. What all this results into is a very specific type scientist being successfully active in the climate research field: The true 'believers'. It is these very 'believers' that are likely to fall into trap I described above that are currently overly represented in the field. This provides a feedback-loop that will become worse with the years, as we have seen in the past two decades. It will likely take very convincing evidence to make these believers question their faith and restore balance in the field. It will probably happen if temperature starts falling significantly again. Even then they will probably find explanations to prolong their beliefs, as is they way of all true believers ;-)
Now all this isn't new. It can be seen over the ages and even today in many situations, where evidence is hard to come by or difficult to obtain. To name a few:
- Try to prove/disprove the existence of God. Or the creation - evolution debate in which it has resulted.
- Many people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit because the detective in question was biased and presented skewed evidence. There are many recorded cases of this. Sometimes these people are later aquitted using the SAME evidence as was already available in the first trial, but now presented in an unbiased way.
With all this going on, it is not difficult to imagine some people are sceptical of climate science. I, for myself am one of them. Why? I read some of the papers and find that the evicence presented is either non-conclusive or cannot be easily verified. This is how I went to work (admittedly around 5 years ago): I skipped all the papers where no raw data was available or where unspecified 'corrections' were applied. I also skipped papers where the exact method of data manipulation was not described. There was surprisingly little that remained. My personal conclusions from what I have read: Warming? Yes, probably. Manmade? I don't think so...