I think your problem here is framing it as "questioning prevailing views". You are setting yourself up for failure by trying to make it about opinions before even doing any science.
The correct way to accomplish this is to take something that you think you can disprove, design an experiment that would show that the existing theory may be incorrect and then successfully defend that.
Say for instance you hypothesised that methane doesn't in fact act as a greenhouse gas, you design an experiment that shows that increasing the % methane in the upper atmosphere doesn't result in additional heat being captured. You would then need to collect the results, properly show they are consistent with your hypothesis vs your control data and then defend that in peer review.
In this case you would most likely be wrong because we are pretty damn sure methane isn't great but if you had an idea that had a chance I am sure you could get funding.
It is worth mentioning that the ability to get funding is somewhat correlated with the interestingness and likelihood of a groundbreaking finding. Finding methane is not contributing to greenhouse effect would be a massive finding, however the likelihood it isn't is low because there already exists a huge body of evidence that supports the opposite conclusion.
TLDR: You can definitely work on attempting to prove climate change isn't happening but you probably need a very clever idea as everyone else that has looked at it thus far hasn't come up with anything capable of disproving it.