I think the core of our disagreement lies in your statement here: "You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status

I think the core of our disagreement lies in your statement here: "You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status within their own bizarre little community." I know some, but not all, scientists, and I can't put them firmly in that category. They're motivated by all sorts of things, as are the rest of us. I do know people who have left academia because they came to hold this belief through negative experiences, but I also know people who have avoided such. I don't think I or you can presume to make such sweeping pronouncements on such a large and varied group of people. I also believe the idea that contrarian scientists immediately lose their career when they question the status quo is an easily falsifiable claim. Is there a general pressure to conform to group think? Yes. Are there painful trends in academia? Yes. Behind the current state of climate science is quite a bit of evidence. I am open to it being entirely wrong, but it seems quite a bit more likely to me that it is right, at least correct enough to take action. The consequences of taking action are far lower than the consequences of not taking action.