Unfortunately, this speaks to a lack of understanding of how science works. The livelihood of industry scientists relies on them doing their job for their company. In the case of petroleum engineers, their job is to produce oil. If these guys start telling their bosses they need to produce less oil, they won't remain employed.
On the other hand, academic scientists have no vested interest in supporting a particular topic. In fact, when we publish our work, we are required to sign conflict of interest statements to indicate any potential outside influences on the work. Our paychecks come from the University. If we receive a federal grant, we can take "summer salary" from the grant, which a maximum of the two months we don't get paid by our Universities (I usually take one month salary from my grants and work one month for free). Summer salary is also capped, so that if you receive multiple grants, you can't double dip. If an academic scientist publishes papers that support climate change, they get paid "x" amount. If they publish papers that oppose climate change, they receive the same paycheck. There is no financial interest that academic scientists receive from supporting climate change. The beauty of academic science is that scientist are free to let the data inform their understanding of the world. It is a critical evaluation of tens of thousands of studies across different disciplines, all supporting climate change, that has led most academic scientists to support anthropogenically induced climate change.
I don't think anyone is disputing scientific procedure, or the regulations under which they work.
But science without doubt is not science, and there is doubt among both some scientists, and the general population, who would ultimately be the victims of what occurs with climate change or what would be endured in enacted measures in the attempt to do something about it. Scientific or not, you cannot ram things down peoples' throats if they don't want it, even if you think it's good for them.
Additionally, there are are the issues of corruption, incompetance, and politics which are a reality of human existence in all realms, including science, and very much worthy of some apprehension when considering this issue.
It's a cloudy crystal ball. For the layman without blind faith, expecting his unequivocal acquiescence to long term estimates through immediate financial sacrifice is expecting too much; we are not robots yet.
We are already paying, in large solely for the analytical and political apparatus. Prices at the pumps are the same now at $40/barrel as they were recently at $100/barrel, and many politicians are already writing large checks on the backs of citizens without their direct consent.
It is this heavy-hammer approach that is alienating many, good science or not, and there is enough evidence of corruption, failed predictions, and politics to cause many to withold or abstain from marching in the streets for what looks largely like nothing more than wealth transfer.
I am old, I've been around for a while, and live on an island. I have seen no climate change at all, and taxes here are among the highest in the world already. For me and others like me, a form of persuasion other than doom or guilt is required for sacrifice. Some results wouldn't hurt either.
