LOL... a single study could be fudged, or it could be wrong that's the entire point of the importance of the whole idea of the scientific "Consensus"... its based on a large collection of converging evidence from different studies, different scientists... its a finding that has be replicated over and over again and has withstood alternative explanations and other types of measurement and data....
Climate change data comes from a huge number of sources of information including direct measurement of the temperature, the physics of CO2, measurement of CO2 from all around the world, historical documents about the human consumption of fossil fuel, historical data on climate, the melting glaciers, melting ice caps, melting sea ice, changing weather patterns, increasing deserts, increasing severe weather and flooding, the increasing acidity of the oceans, and the information is quite solid. Not only that, models from the 1980's (see link below) have shown to be very accurate... predicting data with models is considered the gold standard of science. The only uncertainty is how bad the results will be... with the mild side being famine and huge economic problems in the near future such as coastal flooding and loss of farm land.
Also why would science be biased on a massive scale as you seem to believe... scientists have no vested interest in their discovery and typically make a modest income of between 60,000 to 140,000 in a carreer that takes up to 16 years of training (BA, MA, Ph.D, post docs). Hardly a career that attracts greedy people. And getting scientist to agree on anything is ridiculously hard. The oil industry attracts on the other hand would be billionaires who have greed and power as their motive for promoting the anti-scientific denial propaganda that you listen to.
Crystal Serenity | Open Mind
