The vast majority of climate scientists who actually study this stuff professionally would disagree with you.
Oreskes, 2004 Study on Scientific Climate Literature:
“The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
According to Doran and Kendall Zimmerman’s 2009 poll “76 out of 79 climatologistswho "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Academies of Science and other scientific organizations agreeing with the IPCC position on climate change:
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, European Acamedy of Sciences and Arts, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (UK), Network of African Science Academies (the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the African Academy of Sciences), Polish Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (US), American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, American Meteological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society (international), World Health Organization, American Institute of Physics, American Statistical Association, International Association for Great Lakes Research
The University of East Anglia published data which fitted the model that it wanted to show.
Their data matches the data of the other institutions involved with such measurements, including the satellite temperature record. There's no evidence that they cooked the books or engaged in any sort of academic fraud. But even if they had it would not really mean anything with regard to this debate. They are
one University.
Let's think about the plausibility of a major conspiracy to fraudulently raise fears over climate change. According to Forbes (
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2013/04/17/the-worlds-biggest-companies-2/), 8 of the 25 largest companies in the world are oil and gas companies (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, PetroChina, Chevron, Gazprom, Petrobras and Total). There's also Volkswagen at #13. Most of the rest are banking companies.
In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo that promised, "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media."
In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/08/usnews.climatechange
Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to (alleged) White House pressure to underreport global warming.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0130-10.htm
So if there's a conspiracy, where is more likely to be coming from?
Back in the '70's t
he 'received wisdom' was that we were heading for another Ice Age.
That is not correct.
http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
There was certainly never a scientific consensus predicting global cooling.
The reality is that climate change has been going on since the year dot and runs in various cycles.
Correct. And none of them can account for the recent rise in global surface temperatures. Not sun variation, not orbital drift, not ocean oscillation. Weather variation and ocean oscillation, by the way, affect the distribution of heat around the planet rather than the total heat content. CO2 and other greenhouses gasses raise the total heat content of the planet when their concentration is increased in the atmosphere.