The science behind climate change has nothing to do with any personality or politics and everything to do with physics and atmospheric sciences. Or are you going to debate that the radiative forcing of an atmosphere with CO2 at 450ppm is magically less than one with 250ppm?

The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations.

Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work.

Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue.

Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain.

Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.

http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn...

Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy.

Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.