I know scientists who are climate change skeptics. However, what gets published ("the consensus") isn't the same as "what scientists think".

This isn't only true in science, it's true in virtually all parts of human societies. It's hard to go against the grain and you're naive if you think doing so doesn't blight careers.

Who is preventing the skeptics from posting their arguments anonymously to arxiv for us to see how the arguments hold?

Well for one thing it's a waste of time to work on research that won't advance your career.

Also, I'm not saying "heterodox scientists have secret, bulletproof analyses to disprove climate change," I'm saying that there are significant incentives against publishing climate-crisis-skeptical research. I'm unsure how anyone can disagree with that. Acknowledging it doesn't mean denying climate change is real or accepting that its risks are exaggerated.

If you're a climate sceptic scientist then the oil companies will give you a lot of money to do research.

This is a pretty serious misunderstanding of the claim you're responding to. It's not that scientists in general agree about everything in general. It's that certain hot button issues become politicized in such a way that prevents real scientific skepticism / decent on those subjects in particular.