If you want a case, here's one of the books I mentioned [1]. It's not entirely perfect, but an example of how you can absolutely make a very valid, science-based attempt at a world-view that refutes many of the central tenets of modern climate change ideology.
Don't confuse me: carbon emissions are an important problem, one we need to solve. But you have decades of people like Gore to AOC to celebrities to even legit scientists, all on the left, who make claims like "we're X years from Y major catastrophe", and they end up wrong. Then you have corruption scandals, inaccurate models and stories of suppression of non-narrative-fitting data, and the democrats beating it over everyones heads constantly.
All I'm saying is this: it's very understandable that the Average Josephine on the right is skeptical. Any claim that says "the righties are dumb / purposefully ignorant" is missing an important piece of socio-cultural dynamics and rational game theory - having a distrust of an institution thats been intensely politicized is... fairly rational.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmi...
After you have presented that, you are not allowed to come back with more evidence. It was what you consider the best and most rock solid. Something you hang your credibility.
Usually the opinion like yours is just 'general attitude' and some individual instances of scientific fraud that is not evidence of anything being consistently biased.