You obviously don't know how science work, which is normal outside of scientific circles. But you go on to make scientific claims as if you do. And that is pretty problematic, like antivaxxers claiming to know "scientifically" that essential oils are better at curing diseases.

1. There was a lot of scientific climate debate up through the 1980s and 1990s but it was essentially settled in early 2000s: current climate change is man made, and it threatening the planet. True there may be a few holdouts like the ones you mention but they don't represent the science, and it's strange that anyone would trust them over the entire community.

2. You mentioned in an earlier response that the fact that these holdouts were shunned by the community was "a disgrace". No it's not, it's an emotional argument but there is little room for emotions in science. This is exactly how science is supposed to work. If a researcher makes outlandish or revolutionary claims they must be met with rigorous skepticism. That's the case also for valid claims. They must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If they stand up to the rigorous trials in the community they will survive. You have no idea how many crazy theories are fielded, most die before they leave the lab because they don't work. Some live a bit longer and a few survive to be the new truth.

   EDIT:

   As an example look at how the experiments with the Ion thruster and with Cold fusion were received by their respective scientific communities. Both were met with extreme skepticism, but the scientific community still investigated further. One was accepted the other not.

3. There is a logic fallacy in your argument: you have made up your mind that those few "dissenting voices" are more trustworthy than the entire scientific community and then you move backwards to construct an explanation of the mechanism that leads to the community being wrong. Further the specific claims you make with regard to the mechanism do not logically lead to any specific conclusion, that is, there may be issues with how science work (which is very true) but there is no indication which direction it would move the conclusions. You claim that they would lead to overly alarmist predictions but if I look at the economic forces with a vested interest in climate research most of the powerful economic entities would rather undermine than support an climate change agenda. So in my analysis, your argument leads to the opposite conclusion: climate scientist have systematically under-reported the seriousness of climate change. Still we should look at the facts and we should overwhelmingly trust the scientific community over "a handful of dissenting voices".

In my view you have been ensnared by the old industry (fossil fuel industry, car makers) who see emerging sustainable technologies as serious threats and you are now promoting their agenda while the planet is dying.