if what you were saying were true, the governments of the united states and canada would:
(1) stop fracking.
(2) stop muzzling climate change scientists.
(3) stop subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
(4) drop billions into renewable energy.
(5) stop trying to control all the rest of the oil on the planet.
but, the exact opposite seems to be happening. it's really hard to actually trace these bribes you're talking about. i mean, there's a bit of cash coming from investment funds (like tides). but it's nothing compared to the subsidies going out to coal & oil. conversely, it's pretty easy to trace the funds coming out of organizations like the heartland institute.
even so, you're not really addressing the issue. what you're claiming is that the issue is impossible to address. and, that would actually logically lead to agnosticism. your argument is not that the science is wrong, it's that you don't trust the science. rejecting it is a leap of faith.
i'd be tempted to conclude that your little story here is a way to suggest that you, yourself, are being bribed. but, i don't think that's actually true. rather, i think you just don't like the proposals that climate change activists present because they tend to lead to bigger government. it's not a left/right thing like you suggested in your video, it's more an action/reaction thing.
but, you're surely aware that there's a huge number of libertarian environmentalists that suggest things such as privately owned rivers in order to deal with these kinds of concerns. now, i think this is insane. and, i don't know exactly what your views on owning rivers are. but, i'm sure you can come up with an answer that you can ideologically support, and i think it would help a lot.
i'd much rather see a debate over what the best approach to solving the issue is than a debate over whether it's actually an issue. frankly, i think you'd get more public support on solutions than i would.