[kevinskii]

This is not an accurate characterization of the debate. "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue.

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.

[antod]

> "The world's scientists" are in fact a small cadre of self-described climatologists whose academic careers depend on this being a real issue.

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.

[lifeformed]

Climate change science isn't the result of a small cabal of academics, it's a vast interdisciplinary study involving all fields.

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.

[kevinskii]

Study of the history and effects of climate change is indeed a vast interdisciplinary science. But the study of cause is much more narrowly focused.

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.