there is also an incentive for disagreeing with the mainstream since people with other political views or agendas are willing to fund it as well
This might be an incentive for scientists to serve other political agendas, yes. (Though it's not much of an incentive unless those other agendas have a realistic chance at political power.) But it's not an incentive for scientists to be more objective; it's only an incentive for them to be biased in a different direction.
while as a group researchers benefit from belief in global warming, an individual researcher could do very well from finding convincing evidence against global warming
I'm not sure they could; at any rate, I think it's a matter of opinion, and opinions are going to vary widely.
These are all reasons why in spite of this bias the conclusions of mainstream researchers are probably valid
No, they're not. None of these reasons have anything to do with whether the mainstream conclusions are valid. That was my original point in this subthread: to know whether or not the conclusions are valid, you have to actually look at the data and the arguments based on the data. Trying to figure it out by looking at who is biased how doesn't count.
Also, there's a bait and switch here regarding what "mainstream conclusions" we are supposed to accept. Are we supposed to accept that (1) the climate is changing? Are we supposed to accept that (2) the direction in which it is currently changing is a warming direction? Both of those claims strike me as fairly obvious.
Are we supposed to accept that (3) the IPCC's predictions of what the climate will be like in 2100 are reasonable? I don't think anybody knows enough about how the climate works to say that.
Or are we supposed to accept that (4) we have a planetary emergency and if we don't take drastic action now to keep the climate from changing, we are all doomed? I think that's wrong, and worse, it's dangerous, because acting on this recommendation will squander huge amounts of resources that could be better spent on (a) bringing more people out of poverty, and (b) making it easier for the entire world to adapt to change (climate or otherwise).
Much of the furor over climate change is people talking past each other: people who hold opinions like the ones I've just expressed on #3 and #4 are accused of denying #1 and #2, while people who are only trying to argue for #1 and #2 are accused of arguing for #3 or #4. That makes it almost impossible to have a discussion in which #1 and #2 are reasonably common ground, while #3 and #4, which are the claims that are important if you're trying to decide what to do, can be rationally disputed.
This might be an incentive for scientists to serve other political agendas, yes. (Though it's not much of an incentive unless those other agendas have a realistic chance at political power.) But it's not an incentive for scientists to be more objective; it's only an incentive for them to be biased in a different direction.
while as a group researchers benefit from belief in global warming, an individual researcher could do very well from finding convincing evidence against global warming
I'm not sure they could; at any rate, I think it's a matter of opinion, and opinions are going to vary widely.
These are all reasons why in spite of this bias the conclusions of mainstream researchers are probably valid
No, they're not. None of these reasons have anything to do with whether the mainstream conclusions are valid. That was my original point in this subthread: to know whether or not the conclusions are valid, you have to actually look at the data and the arguments based on the data. Trying to figure it out by looking at who is biased how doesn't count.
Also, there's a bait and switch here regarding what "mainstream conclusions" we are supposed to accept. Are we supposed to accept that (1) the climate is changing? Are we supposed to accept that (2) the direction in which it is currently changing is a warming direction? Both of those claims strike me as fairly obvious.
Are we supposed to accept that (3) the IPCC's predictions of what the climate will be like in 2100 are reasonable? I don't think anybody knows enough about how the climate works to say that.
Or are we supposed to accept that (4) we have a planetary emergency and if we don't take drastic action now to keep the climate from changing, we are all doomed? I think that's wrong, and worse, it's dangerous, because acting on this recommendation will squander huge amounts of resources that could be better spent on (a) bringing more people out of poverty, and (b) making it easier for the entire world to adapt to change (climate or otherwise).
Much of the furor over climate change is people talking past each other: people who hold opinions like the ones I've just expressed on #3 and #4 are accused of denying #1 and #2, while people who are only trying to argue for #1 and #2 are accused of arguing for #3 or #4. That makes it almost impossible to have a discussion in which #1 and #2 are reasonably common ground, while #3 and #4, which are the claims that are important if you're trying to decide what to do, can be rationally disputed.