Skeptics accuse Believers of 9 cognitive biases.  Believers and Skeptics mutually accuse each other of 4 more. Why don’t Believers accuse Skeptics of any others?

Skeptics accuse Believers of:

• Overconfidence — in the predictions of their computer models.

• Hindsight Bias — Because the computer models have (admittedly) been tweaked to post-dict past cimate changes, Believers assume wrongly that past climate events were more ‘predictable’ than they really were, according to Skeptics. 

• Illusion of Control — Believers think that human reductions of greenhouse gases will make a large enough contribution to reduce global warming, but Skeptics think that’s an illusion.

• Loss Aversion, exacerbated by Endowment Effects — Skeptics claim Believers overestimate the costs of warming (compared to the benefits). 

• Bandwagon Effects

• Appeal to Authority Fallacy

• Availability Bias with Focusing Effects — due to the vividness of climate catastrophe scenarios.

Mutual accusations include:

• Ad Hominem claims —  by Believers that Skeptics are beholden to oil company money: by Skeptics that Believers are seeking grant money, are anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-free trade, anti-development/growth, anti-consumer, or are socialist, communist, anarchist, etc.

• Status Quo Bias —  Skeptics claim Believers want to keep the climate stabilized at its present level, and Believers claim Skeptics want stability for present manufacturing processes, distribution of wealth, SUVs, etc. 

• Confirmation/Disconfirmation biases —  leading to irrational belief persistence

Finally, I accuse the whole gang of subjection to Polarization Effects. 

But where are the Believers’ accusations of bias in the Skeptics?