I'm sure you would find results that are diametrically opposed to climate change if you looked at studies funded by say, oil companies, and there is no doubt in mind as to the bias implied in that direction.
The harsh reality is that things are more nuanced than either side would have you believe, and throwing numbers like "90% consensus" is a fallacious way to bully an argument, and isn't at all scientific on its own.
Eventually Exxon shut down the division and spent the next 35 years paying public relations agencies to spread misinformation and doubt about the science. Including the false narrative that scientists are being paid to manufacture global warming.
There have always been mercenary scientists like Willie Soon who solicite industry to produce shoddy science that protects their interests. The same thing happened with the lead, asbestos, and tobacco industries. The majority of scientists are not in it for the money. They became scientists to advance human knowledge. That's the entire point of being a scientist. Your conception of the field is cynical and not rooted in reality.
Funny how their funding stopped hmmm?
Peer reviewed scientific studies examining the level of consensus among climate scientists that Earth is warming and the primary cause is human activity:
Verheggen 2014 - 91% consensus Powell, 2013 - 97% consensus John Cook et al., 2013 - 97% consensus Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 - 84% consensus Anderegg et al, 2010 - 97% consensus Doran, 2009 - 97% consensus Bray and von Storch, 2008 - 93.8% consensus STATS, 2007 - 95% consensus Oreskes, 2004 - 100% consensus
The Cook 2016 meta analysis of consensus studies finds the rate of consensus between 90 - 100% and that agreement with the consensus approaches 100% as expertise in climatology increases.
This list is probably outdated. I put it together 5 or 6 years ago.
Then theres that survey by Science where 60% of respondents said they expect us to hit 3C of warming because of intransigence by policy makers.