The other side argues that climate alarmists are often backed by organizations whose funding depends on the existence of a climate catastrophe. Without a looming catastrophe there would be less public funding and far fewer donations.
From personal observation only, the climate denial side seems to have fewer scientist in all, with less direct relationship to climate science on average, a more direct and pressing connection to their corresponding sources of bias, and with a greater proportion of those scientists who have that connection - and all those faults in a great majority. So, from my point of view, it doesn't seem like a draw when it comes to bad faith polluting each side of the conversation.
I agree that there are fewer climate scientists, but I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment. Unless the employer is on the climate denial side, in which case the critical scientist would be automatically discredited by being employed by the wrong side.
I am saying that employers of climate scientists have expectations, because they are in one of the two camps. Do you know any major organization that the other camp would consider neutral?
Have you heard of a climate alarmist organization of employing a sceptic to validate their claim, or a climate sceptic organization employing an alarmist? That would be interesting.
I call it a draw.