[happytoexplain]

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.

[tjansen]

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.

[Oletros]

> I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment

Are you saying that almost every climate scientist is a climate alarmist?

[tjansen]

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.

[Oletros]

Universities are in one camp?

Define climate alarmist, please

[Yetanfou]

I see your question and raise you a counter-question:

Define climate denier, please

I can actually answer both:

A climate alarmist is someone who agrees with the hypothesis that the planet is on the verge of a catastrophic climate change, generally assumed to be related to an increase in the average global temperature which is generally linked to human industrial activity, most notably the type of activity which involves the combustion of fossil carbon sources. This person will see the hypothetical climate catastrophe as the most important issue facing mankind and generally is willing to take drastic steps to limit its impact.

A climate denier is someone who does not agree with the hypothesis of an upcoming climate catastrophe. This does not imply the climate denier claims there is no such thing as climate change nor that human activity can and does influence climate, just that this person does not believe in an upcoming catastrophic climate upheaval.

The fact that these two terms are bandied around so easily shows how infected and polarised this issue has become. This is unfortunate as there are good arguments on both sides of the divide. The 'alarmists' generally want to get rid of fossil fuel dependencies which I consider to be a good idea, just not for the reasons they state and not with the urgency they crave. Fossil fuels are large sources of pollution (which is mostly but not entirely unrelated to the climate discussion), they are the root cause of many international conflicts. The 'deniers' generally want to keep a balance between the environmental and economical impact of reneging on or using fossil carbon sources which I tend to agree with even though I do not subscribe to the school of 'eternally growing economies'. Many on the 'denier' side are willing to increase the use of nuclear energy while many on the 'alarmist' side are averse to this option even though it offers many benefits in their goal of reducing carbon emissions. This is most likely related to the fact that the people who are on the 'alarmist' side of the divide generally identify with environmental causes which have (often successfully) fought investments in nuclear energy.

This is why it would be beneficial for all involved to open a true discussion on this subject, without throwing epithets at any and all who do not agree to the fully to a stated position.

[tjansen]

Thank you for answering the question far better than I could.

Nuclear energy is the conundrum I fail to understand, especially here in Germany. If climate change is the most important threat to humanity, why not choose the relatively easy solution to use nuclear energy, or at least continue to operate the existing plants until there is a better alternative? Or put money into research to overcome the existing shortcomings of nuclear energy. Instead most climate alarmists in Germany want to shut down all nuclear plants and all nuclear research, most prominently the Green party, thereby increasing CO2 emissions. Does that imply that nuclear energy is an even worse threat to humanity? In that case, why don't they focus on fighting nuclear energy first, which is wide-spread especially in neighbouring France.

If you want to fight something, but don't want a solution, that makes me wonder what exactly you're fighting.

[Oletros]

> A climate alarmist is someone who agrees with the hypothesis that the planet is on the verge of a catastrophic climate change

I have asked the OP because he has said that "I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment" implying that all climate scientists are alarmists.

> A climate denier is someone who does not agree with the hypothesis of an upcoming climate catastrophe.

Eh, no, a climate denier is someone that denies cliamte is changing or that the main force of change is humanity