I would put that primarily in the government sphere. Scientists generally do not lie purposefully, although it does happen. It usually ends your career if you are caught.
This is not the same as a scientist promoting a world view that he has come to conclude is true based on his interpretation of observations. The scientist can be wrong but does not believe he is wrong, and thus is not lying. Not lying is not quite the same as being correct. Most scientists make a lot of effort to avoid falling into that trap, but we are trained to observe and interpret, so we do. And we are often not correct, even if a lot of times we are not exactly incorrect either. Being not quite right is not the same as being totally wrong. Most of science is a history of people offering interpretations that are only partially true, and advancement occurs when the true part is kept and new ideas replace what is found to be untrue (or incorrect).
It is a work in progress. There is no "consensus" so those who argue that there is and this is proof of "truth" are being deceptive, at best. A thing either works or it does not work. If it works (even if imperfectly), we tend to live with it until something better comes along, until someone figures out how to make better and more accurate predictions. the concept is one of looking at what happens, interpreting why it happens the way it does, and then proposing a process which is responsible. How good that suggested process is can be best tested by how well it predicts.
I don't particularly accept the AGW (man-caused global warming) argument because the predictions are so poor. I am sure that CO2 has a role in heat exchange but the system itself and the importance of CO2 in system behavior is very obviously poorly understood.