I've been aware of this issue, and monitoring it, since the 1980s. I was heading in the direction of an academic geochemist (before family economics and career feasibility intervened). I know about Earth's paleoclimate history back to the Archaean. What I know is this: the current scientific view of climate change/global warming is that mankind's activities are increasingly becoming the dominant forcing factor. I admit and recognize that there is a liberal political bias (which frequently results in miscommunication and overhype) in the reporting of scientific results. But I also recognize the basic scientific conclusions with minimal political bias involved. Furthermore, I've got a sufficiently informed scientific background to know that the basics of the science (i.e., what increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should do) are sound.
You are naive then. From Science Magazine to the IPCC to funding dollars the message is clear, you support catastrophic global warming or you will not receive one red cent and will not get published. Politics has been corrupting science for hundreds of years, and global warming science is today's worst offender. Any critic is blackballed, ridiculed, and defunded. How can you call that unbias?