I believe the big issue here is that many people who say "science is wrong" or this is "scientific fraud" don't understand the science to begin with.

What do we know about the models that were "fraudulent"?

The beauty of science is it's falsifiability. Scientists will regularly try to make existing theories fail so we can whittle down to the best possible understanding we can about the natural world. If a scientist is found to intentionally make false claims or misrepresenting facts their career is over, it's a one strike system. The importance of this skepticism is paramount because we have to always add new data and methods to make sure the models are still as accurate as possible.

Now does that make the data less real? Does that make the evidence less real? No

Climate science in particular is a very complicated model and I of course am not an expert in it. But to the best of our understanding now, based on the evidence at hand and correlated with the historical record, there is a robust view that man's impact on the earth is real. You are free to disbelieve or suspend belief all you want, until the model is shown to be false it's all academic.