OK, so there are multiple things to break down here. Firstly, no such lobby exists anymore, if it ever did. All the supposed oil majors have reinvented themsel

OK, so there are multiple things to break down here. Firstly, no such lobby exists anymore, if it ever did. All the supposed oil majors have reinvented themselves as energy companies a long time ago and have big investments in solar, wind, etc. They are well aware that green initiatives aren't going to undermine the oil business any time soon; it will happen on a long enough timescale that they can easily build new businesses and make money from the new tech too. Even if every car factory in the world switched to making electric cars and only electric cars tomorrow, it would take decades for the vehicle fleet to turn over, so there's no real pressure on these people to mount diabolical schemes because the time horizon is far too long. Secondly, the opposite of "climate change science is unreliable" is not "and therefore there is reliable science saying the opposite". If climatology as a field is unreliable then we are in a knowledge vacuum in which the claims might be true, or they might not be, or they might be some exaggeration of the reality or some over-simplification. All these things are possible if the science is not reliable. Thirdly, climatology is uniquely difficult to deal with because academic climatologists are the ones producing the actual temperature record itself. There have been arguments in the past about the temperature record because global temperatures didn't follow predictions, at all (e.g. the "pause"), and the response of climatology was to issue new versions of the historical datasets that simply created the trend they had predicted. Sometimes the raw data isn't even available at all, only their adjusted datasets. Thus if climatology is an unreliable field there's actually no way to construct an alternative more reliable narrative, because you'd have to build on datasets controlled by the people you don't trust and which are repeatedly revised to bring data in line with predictions. (they have various justifications for doing so, but the incentive problems created by scientists "fixing" the historical record are obvious enough that they don't need elaboration). Ideally collection and processing of climate related data would be done by totally different people to those making predictions about it. That doesn't happen: the community is just far too small. So, apparently untrustworthy practices can be pointed out like ... well, like claiming you can accurately predict the temperature a hundred years in advance whilst simultaneously claiming you were unable to accurately measure the actual temperature just ten years ago. But that doesn't then let you say "and so here is a more reliable set of predictions". At any rate, if you'd like a citation for a reasonable, apparently rational and well argued alternative take, have a look at this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZW-6jw98U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZW-6jw98U