I don’t think you’ve got this part quite right.

… if the climate science is accepted as being “settled” which is what people Carter calls “alarmists” want, there isn’t a good case to spend ever more money on climate science. We should shift our funding to mitigation, which means mainly a different bunch of people get funded, mostly in alternative energy.

I don’t think the ‘alarmists’ consider the evidence settled in any worth the term. From what I can tell, most are happy to admit that there are still considerable gaps in our knowledge, but that the evidence is still strong enough that we should take the problem seriously and do what we can– mitigation. Mitigation, though, requires that we continue to research the issue and fill in those gaps in our knowledge. Mitigation will be more effective the more understanding we have, in other words. So there is still justification for research– justification beyond the attractive but mostly fairy tale ‘knowledge for knowledge’s sake’.

Who DOES benefit from an ongoing controversy? People like Carter who are past it and have no useful contribution to make (but who can sit in think tanks funded by fossil fuel money with the express purpose of derailing the politics of mitigation). Next time one of these petitions by scientists shows up, look at how many signatories have descriptions like “emeritus” (= former academic, allowed to keep title of professor), “retired” or “former”.

Methane is a potent climate change gas. A fair amount of it emanating from old farts who don’t want to admit they are past it.