I think it's extremely unclear to what extent anyone (1) attempted to rig the peer review process and (2) succeeded. In any case, even a very badly rigged peer review process would not make it true that climate researchers are "paid to confirm AGW" unless everyone knows that the process is rigged. I think that is clearly not so.

No, I am not asserting that AGW is as settled as evolution. I'm pointing out that "everyone being paid to work on this agrees with X, which shows that you can't get on in the field without agreeing with X, which shows that there's a bias against non-X" is a lousy argument, because in the case X=evolution it produces a result that is (to reasonable people) not credible. Note for the avoidance of doubt: I was attempting to pre-empt that argument, not accusing you of having made it.

(The cases X=evolution and X=AGW are somewhat parallel, though certainly not identical. In both cases there is a robust scientific consensus challenged by a minority. In both cases at least some of the challenging minority have an obvious reason for making the challenge that doesn't have much to do with truth. In both cases the challenging minority has strong ties to a particular political group -- the same group in both cases, as it happens. In both cases the challenging minority accuses the majority of having similarly non-truth-directed motivations, and in both cases it's not terribly clear what those are really supposed to be.)

I don't know what non-CRU people you are referring to, nor what acknowledgement they've made that "the thumb was on the scale", so I can't comment on your statement about that.

The stuff about "good people" and "bad people" is a red herring; neither I nor anyone upthread made any claim even slightly resembling "these people are Good and those are Bad, therefore these are Right and those are Wrong". Eschenbach has a clear incentive to do whatever it takes to make AGW look less likely; that's true whether he's a good person, a bad person, or (like maybe 99.9% or so of the human race) a mixture of the two. And, unless he is an incorruptible saint concerned with nothing but truth, it is rational to apply some discount to things he says that make AGW look less likely: not because he is a bad person and bad people never tell the truth, but because he is a (probably quite rational) person with a strong incentive to say such things even if they are wrong or misleading.

Similarly, no one (I hope) is saying that mainstream climate scientists must be right because they are good people and good people never say false things. But I will happily make the following argument: Imagine someone in the field of climate science who is inclined to put his or her own interests ahead of truth, and who doesn't mind doing bad or dishonest science for that purpose. Do you think that person is more likely to turn to Shell or the AEI or the Republican party, or to Greenpeace or Al Gore? Where is the readier flow of money likely to be found?

Is your last paragraph just vague handwaving, or is there an actual argument there? On the face of it it looks almost like you're suggesting that the reason why climate scientists almost all defend AGW is that people writing papers on other subjects tend to say "and by the way this is consistent with AGW" whether it is or not, but every part of that looks very silly so you probably have something more sensible in mind.