Crichton was not honest or well-informed. Broadly speaking, the temperature record has little to do with the validity of AGW. Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is untrue, and something of an insult to the profession. Suggesting that the greenhouse effect is misnamed is a non sequitur. Your characterization of the study of H2O forcing is basically counterfactual. Berkeley Earth disagrees with your claim about temperature stations.

You don't seem to have a handle on the actual mechanism of carbon-induced warming. I find it most useful to examine science from a historical perspective: as a series of questions about the universe works. As such, I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming:

  [0] https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

This will also tell you about how AGW was completely discredited (by multiple independent lines of evidence) for five decades, and had to fight its way back to academic credibility. That should serve as conclusive evidence that there is not a conspiracy or cabal shutting down alternative research: an 12-decade international conspiracy theory to maintain the credibility of a theory is implausible, but there's no way to reconcile that with the theory being discredited for its initial half-century.