[civility]

> and have a pro-economic growth bias

Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell.

Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate problem.

[agent008t]

No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better.

If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.

[civility]

> No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, [...]

I like how that sets the bar higher for extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. Although honestly, I'll always be skeptical about extrapolation and predicting the future more than a few cycles out.

> If there is any such bias among climate scientists [...]

I agree. It seems fair to ask who goes into and gets accepted as a PhD in that field. It's pretty easy to imagine there could be a selection bias, and "science advances one funeral at a time".