The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.
There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.
Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.
Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.
Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.
Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.
Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.
of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.