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.
tjansen|6 years ago
I call it a draw.
happytoexplain|6 years ago