You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships. Not to mention that they would be a hero to most of the planet. They would be singlehandedly responsible for major policy shifts on the part of entire countries. There's a massive incentive for someone to convincingly disprove the negative effects of climate change.
If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science, then why are there climate skeptics with positions in major universities? Why are major journalistic publications skeptical? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of a forum for debate on climate science, because everyone, including, probably, many climate scientists, would love for it to be wrong.
Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith. Certainly any academic field, like any human endeavor, is subject to group think, but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years, you can see that the scientific approach, empirically, does lead to success, or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field.
The politicization of the whole thing ("liberal morality") is also intriguing. I'm an unabashed liberal. If you put a convincing argument about how the climate would be fine in front of me, I would thank you a thousand times over.
As it stands, I've read so many arguments from climate skeptics, and they roughly follow the following templates:
* a wholesale belief that climate science is operating under a special kind of bad faith
* misunderstandings of things like the second law of thermodynamics (e.g. ignoring the atmosphere itself acting as a heat sink)
* belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part), ignoring that Professor Q might also be subject to such things
* belief in government or corporate control over the discussion, ignoring the truly massive financial incentive to ignore climate science
* citations, usually exaggerations, of how many "climate predictions" have gone wrong, ignoring that science journalism and activists will often simplify and/or incorrectly cite studies in any field, because the public doesn't, in the end, understand the language of probability