That is how Climate Science has progressed for decades. State scientists who disagreed were fired. Researchers who came up with the "wrong" results found they never got any more research grants.

It was almost compulsory for any science paper regardless of subject to include a section hinting that Global Warming was somehow making things worse and that more research would be required.

The UN set up the IPCC that went through all the motions of an impartial review of climate research but the list of scientists involved would be strictly controlled. Problematic papers would be suppressed usually by delaying publication. That is what the peer review system is for a cynic might suggest. That could make a paper miss the IPCC deadline for inclusion or create time to provide a counter argument no matter how long it took to fabricate.

The final IPCC summary would be written by politician not scientists and that view would make it into the media some weeks before the full science was revealed making it difficult to double-check any conclusions for yourself.

Oh, and all that happens before you realise that science does not work by consensus. Sometimes the scientific consensus is wrong for several decades. See what the consensus thought about continental drift, for instance.