I can believe that a bureaucracy can try to control what the scientists working under them say. What I cannot believe is that they can manage to be so fantastically successful at doing that, given all I know about scientists, their temperaments, and motivations.
They sure aren’t going to get fame by being one of many drones that go along with what their bosses dictate. Your narrative doesn’t make sense. There are just too many to control that way, and many of them don’t even work for the IPCC. It still sounds like tin hat time.
Scientists in history have notoriously resistant to running with the herd.
If so, there are a lot more carrots waiting for them in the fossil fuel industry, which loves to sponsor scientists who say everything is just fine the way it is. If a scientists wants to say anything against global warming he surely won’t starve, but will probably be rewarded even more.
I do not watch youtube videos as a replacement for supporting evidence.
I did. It makes no more of a compelling argument against global warming than yours. It makes arguments of possible bias in the IPCC leadership, but does not explain how that bias can be so effective in convincing scientists who are not under their control to do their bidding.