https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallac...
An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc on the world within a few decades. In response, the humans who make extraordinary amounts of money off of X (and won't be alive in a few decades), pay large sums of money to a few people who say: X isn't that bad.
So an alien examines this situation and thinks: "Hmm... should I believe the overwhelming majority of rationalists, or the few people with financial incentives to be contrarians?" The alien concludes: "Since there are two sides to the debate, that means each side is exactly 50% likely to be right. The answer must be unknowable, and therefore they shouldn't make any decision on it and just maintain the status quo (making the contrarians the victors)." Just kidding. The alien says, "Wow, if this species is stumped on this one, I'll just come back later and harvest their newly melted water and filter all their corpses out."
no one is immune to bias and misaligned incentives, especially on contentious political issues, and especially in fields where your entire job depends on government funding. in general, I am quite skeptical of academics.
Scientists and academics indeed have their own biases, but when you look at the big picture of the distribution of peoples' motivations, very clear patterns emerge that scream out: there is a lot of bad-faith, deliberate disinformation out there, and we need to take that into account. As rational people, it's tempting to just take arguments at face value and focus on the information. But this is all taking place in a larger context where psychology and game theory play a role. Impartiality is exploitable - tying up people's judgement is just a victory for the status quo.
If you want to be skeptical of the skeptics, fine. We all should be. But the notion that the bias is one-sided is silly.
Really? I think a lot of countries have scientific agencies whose job it is to as accurately as possible monitor and predict the climate because those countries economies (eg especially important for planning in agricultural economies) depend on it. If they had scientists that could show it was a non issue, those governments would be all over that. And after all those scientists would still need to be employed predicting the natural climate cycles anyway.
The world would fall at the feet of scientists that could scientifically refute this. That would be the hugest money making opportunity for any climate scientist, and instant fame. To contend that whatever secret international cabal in favour of promoting climate change can outcompete the fossil fuel industry for resources is frankly nutty. If these academics are as corruptible as you seem to claim, why would they choose the low reward side of the debate?
You seem to be trying to inject some false "balance" to this.
Bias isn't a binary proposition: it's not that since both sides have some bias, they should be equally distrusted. It's that one side has 0.02 bias and the other side has 0.6 bias, so weigh accordingly.
Of those scientists who have backgrounds that would qualify them to contribute in this particular area, the consensus is not at all clear. But the ones who seem most concerned about rapid AGW appear to be those with skin in the game.
We need to find ways to reduce CO2 emissions that will improve the lives of people instead of making them worse. How about massive R&D into nuclear power to make it safer, education about radiation so that people are not so irrationally afraid of it, fusion power research, a carbon tax and research into how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere so that, if we can get cheaper power, we can use it to fix the problem. The Tesla Roadster and the Model S is how you get people to switch to electric cars, not at huge gas tax (they tried that in Europe, btw).
That's not quite true - there are plenty of non-partisan and even conservative groups that accept climate change. For example, the US military and the Department of Defense: not exactly a progressive think tank. Yet they accept the reality of the situation, since they are pragmatic and actually have to deal directly with the consequences. They study how climate change affects world stability and combat and are actively preparing for it. Many oil companies have finally admitted to the facts and tip toe around the issue for PR safety. Even Trump is building sea walls around his vulnerable properties while milking the political benefits from denialism.
As for your second paragraph, yes, I agree, let's focus on the implementation. There's a lot of imperfect solutions that we need to sort through. I just wish we could already all be at that stage.
The CEI is only one of many places that "distribute" this figure. As you can see from the lower left of the figure, it was actually made by John Christy, a climate scientists who showed it in testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2015. A good discussion of the chart and what it means is given in the Judith Curry article I linked to in another post upthread.