>>My conclusion, perhaps I will be classified as a conspiracy theorist for this, is that possibly the climate industry has become such a big industry that in order to sustain itself it has to bend the truth a bit and cherry pick data and conclusion to let the world think we have a massive environment problem. What could be a bigger threat to the industry than the outcome that it is build on false assumptions?

I have considerable sympathy for your viewpoint. However: what if you're wrong?

The issue is that those who propose doing nothing until the science is "proven" (as if anything ever could be absolutely proven!) are in fact seeking to impose their own viewpoint just as aggressively as those they accuse. The term for a deliberate (in the classical sense) decision to do nothing is "masterly inactivity" but it relies on sufficient experience and knowledge to review the evidence. This is very different from refusing to move until the opponent achieves an unreachable target. The fact is that climate science is not alone in experiencing contradictory evidence and uncertainty: doctors face that every day of their professional careers and it's not a recipe to do nothing.