As previously reported, your former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was astute enough to appreciate the inherent danger of governments paying for research when, in his farewell address, he said the following:

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
 
"In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
 
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
 
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
 
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
 
"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Much has been made of the recent claim from 11,000 'scientists' (published in the journal BioScience) that the planet is facing a climate emergency.  Is one aware, though, that ten years ago more than 30,000 American Scientists (including over 9,000 with PhD's) signed the Global Warming Petition Project ^[1] - which warns of there being no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO₂ will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like the Paris Accord are harmful, and hinder science?
 
Therein lies the first problems with your assertions:
 
"If a climate scientist says (and most/99% of them are) 'humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a liveable condition for humanity' I am going to believe them until someone with similar scientific credentials tells me different. Politician or employee of a fossil fuel company or some guy like me who watched a YouTube video are not good sources for information about climate science."
 
i). There is no 99% consensus claiming "humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a liveable condition for humanity".
 
ii). There is many a climate scientist willing to offer an alternative view to that of doom and gloom merchants (I've previously linked to some of their work), but one rarely hears from them because of the concerted efforts of the left-wing dominated media (and to some extent academe) to supress this information.
 
iii). One can discern the increasingly political nature of the argument when climate activists begin to throw the likes of Michael Mann under a bus. ^[2]
 
iv). Blogs and YouTube can be extremely helpful in providing and understanding of the issues involved, disseminating new research and highlighting the dubious practices being employed to maintain the myth of their being a climate/environmental emergency. 

The BioScience article is good example of the latter, ^[3] or as John Daly once pithily commented (in response to Ben Santer's claim of there being a discernible human influence on global climate), there’s "a discernible human influence on global climate change science". ^[4]

In essence therefore, assuming one heeds the advice of President Eisenhower, one can choose to believe those being handsomely rewarded for providing support for policy, or the independent thinkers seeking to further human understanding.
 
*

"At the end of the day...what’s the worst thing that could happen if we cleaned up the planet? People would live longer healthier lives. The only people arguing against the clean-up effort are those who stand to gain financially by continuing to pollute and those who just want to argue against the 'other team'".
 
I cannot speak for the USA, but in the UK air quality and life expectancy have improved tremendously since the 1960's.  That’s not to say we should be complacent, but as with most issues it's a trade-off.  What of, for example, the ethical implications and pollution created by the mining of rare earth materials for 'clean' renewables and EV's?





*
 
"Finally...my favourite argument is 'who is going to pay for it?'. The answer is quite simple...the same people who pay for bombs. The people who pay for roads and teachers. The people who enjoy using things like the 911 emergency service. Our tax dollars will be used to clean up the planet instead of paying for lung cancer treatment for our children because the air is poison."
 
A simplistic notion which offers no regard to the true cost: that more are likely to die from the 'cure' than the 'disease'.
 
[1] ‪[Link: petitionproject.org];
[2] ‪[Link: twitter.com];
[3] ‪[Link: joannenova.com.au];
[4] ‪[Link: remotecentral.com];