As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.
There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "
there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see
here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the
original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.
You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?
There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.
I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.