While scientists will express their opinions of the data and findings of a study, the scientific method is not an op-ed piece. The great thing about science is that a study comes with a thesis, a description of assumptions, a discussion of the experimental design, data, analysis of data, and a discussion of the conclusions. Other scientists can check the work, both via peer review at the publishing stage, and by judging and reproducing the work after publication. If they believe there's a problem with the experimental design, they can describe the problem. If they believe there's something wrong with the data, or the analysis of the data, they can explain what's wrong. Or run new experiments that demonstrate what's wrong, and publish those studies in turn. This process does create a bias of sorts, but it's the right kind: a bias toward wanting to be shown to be thorough, professional, neutral, and logical in the drawing of conclusions -- and have one's work hold up to attempts at refutation by other scientists, including those with a strong desire to prove the conclusion is wrong.
If a scientist is biased by having an employer with an agenda, and that bias manifests in a study, then that study can be exposed as faulty by other scientists. That's how science works. So unless you believe a global cabal of thousands of scientists and their many different employers are all somehow coordinated in their unwillingness to judge each other's studies as flawed, you must give credence to the overwhelming support among scientists for the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
Likewise, if you believe the multitude of studies is flawed, then go ahead and show how. Pick any couple of dozen and have at it. There are plenty of employers with a strong and admitted bias against global warming (e.g. the oil and gas industry), and they employ scientists. If those scientists produce irrefutable studies disproving anthropogenic climate change, then that would become the accepted science, and those scientists would be viewed as luminaries in the field.
As for the cabal: unfortunately, many believe in exactly that -- including, nominally, President-elect Trump, who has stated climate change is a "hoax". I doubt he believes it's literally a hoax, but I don't doubt he understands that acceptance of the science threatens the bank accounts of those making money from the implicated processes. The same people driving the regulatory capture process, plowing money into congressional elections, etc. The real cabal is the force against the science.
There are so few studies leaning in the other direction that it should be easy to choose an "unfairly" discredited one and expose its field-wide refutations as illogical and biased.