"A climate scientist wants a job and the only funded jobs are those who research proposals show that the intention is to try to prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims."
Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie.
I'll tell you what stops him/her. The lack of evidence for the denier point of view.
In fact, climate research was funded by the Koch brothers, in an attempt to prove their denier claims. Can you guess what happened? Surprise! The study concluded the temperature increases are real and have no other explanation than the CO2 emissions caused by humans.
So no, the issue is not the funding. The issue is all the evidence points against the denier claims.
Furthermore, scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. See this video showing how happy this scientist is after recently finishing a study proving that chemists were wrong for many decades about how alkaline metals interact with water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
And a study proving the climate scientists are wrong and the deniers are right would earn you a Nobel price, so there's a lot to win by going against the consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.
The only pesky thing stopping you from doing it is lack of evidence, not your bullshit conspiracy theories.
Sorry for using "denier" instead of "skeptic" during the comment, but your use of "alarmists" makes that fair game.