Yes, it certainly seems like they have a penchant for "make believe". Unfortunately they are able to fool a large number of people, despite their being significant evidence they are liars and cheats. Take for instance, this from today. This was a "peer reviewed" article in possibly the most prestigious scientific journal... yet this guy found an error of such magnitude on the first page that it virtually make their conclusion completely invalid. Other than that, it was a good paper and the peer reviewers did a good job. 
(As one of the commenters noted, these problems with the paper were made public over a week ago, without a scintilla of press coverage until yesterday when the authors admitted they had made a serious error.)
Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
Researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Here are my takes from your article:
“Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
So it is bad enough they messed up the error margins in their favor giving anyone who believes in climate change to believe it is going to come true as “settled science”. But the fact is now there is as little as a 10% chance of the oceans warming according to the corrected data. That is hardly “settled science”. Anyone who tells you they can actually predict the future is lying. Anyone who believes the future climate can be predicted is naive and I am willing to sell you my house on the BI for $1M.
Here is another take:
“According to the most recent IPCC report, climate emissions need to be cut by 20 percent by 2030 and then zeroed out by 2075 to keep warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.”
This is saying that all countries must cut their climate emissions to ZERO BY 2075 in order to keep the oceans from warming more than 3.6 degrees. What that is saying is even if we do cut our climate emissions to ZERO BY 2075 the oceans are still going to warm up to 3.6 degrees, just not exceed 3.6 degrees. What developing country is going to want to stifle it’s economy and starve it’s people by banning cheap energy production burning oil and coal? How do they even extract the oil and coal and ship it without causing climate emissions? How many Americans are going to do give up all forms of transportation including mass transit as even mass transit causes climate emissions from electricity production. Which also means nothing can be shipped to Hawaii because ships produce climate emissions because they have to. Oh wait, there is nuclear power right? The hypocrisy of all of this is that the climate change proponents are against nuclear energy. And even if they were pro nuclear energy, they still have to figure out how to extract the fissionable material from the earth and process it without causing climate emissions. Facts are they can’t. Idiots.
The technology is just not possible at this time to say, by this date we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Again, predicting the future is easy when you place the date so far in advance you will be dead by the time everyone finds out what you said wasn’t true.