I agree with you but notice how it was done with the tobacco industry, they paid some scientists very well to produce the misinformation that was most difficult to deal with at the time, since it was claimed to be "Scientific".
I would argue this is again true about the climate problem, but this time the scientists being paid to work on the wrong thing is so much higher in proportion, such that we can't identify any particular culprits for doing the bribery, we are all bribing ourselves by working for profit alone.
How many scientists dare say that to their employers or colleagues?
We can find out the truth about this by asking what is the real source of the problem, the original driver of temperature, it is the constant conversion of things created by nature, which originally would have lowered temperature by putting to use energy which would otherwise be temperature. Our conversion of those things to energy for our own use just ultimately converts them back to temperature. E=MC squared is the only bit of basic physics we need to understand that.
A similar analysis applies to the use of solar, with the opposite result.
By taking energy from the sun, converting it to our use, removes part of what would normally just go towards becoming temperature on Earth, if nature didn't otherwise use it. Use of solar, any use, at any efficiency at all, has the opposite effect on temperature, than our use of energy extracted from Earth.
So our activity to date has had a double whammy effect on temperature, before we even start to consider carbon, which is a symptom of our use of extracted energy, not only do we directly generate temperature increase by converting matter and life to energy, but the temperature reduction that might have occurred by life on Earth consuming sunlight, thus cooling the Earth is also cancelled, by our removal of that life.
The only way to reverse this, is to start maximising the amount of solar energy converted to things other than heat.
So we have to encourage life by removing our energy burden from it.
We can do that by becoming solar powered ourselves, backing it uo with hydrogen created from that energy, rather than with toxic batteries.
We start, when money is issued reflecting the solar product already created historically from solar.
How many scientists dare say this right now?
Not many yet I guess but it won't be long now the planet is starting to burn.