This topic has become so political that there's basically nobody left who isn't biased in some way either intentionally of by virtue of some personal vested interest.
Those doing government funded research can hardly come out and say that global warming doesn't exist. If enough people belived them then there goes research funding into climate change. Politicians aren't going to pump millions of $ into funding resarch into something that even the scientists are saying doesn't exist, especially when the notion that it does exist runs counter to so many other objectives.
On the other hand, those funded by the fossil fuel industry or major energy consumers have a strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of climate change or deny that it exists at all.
In reality, the truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle. It probably is a problem but not to the extent that the most dire predictions suggest.
Play it safe? The problem there is that, whilst scientifically sensible, it comes at the cost of not pursuing development in the poorer countries to the same extent that it would otherwise occur. Renewable energy generally costs more than fossil fuels, especially coal (though there are exceptions - mostly using waste biomass, remote solar etc applications, large scale hydro and in a few locations geothermal). If energy is more expensive then that in itself tends to reduce overall economic development and this comes at a massive social and human cost in the poorer countries where basics like clean food and water are still lacking (noting that fixing this will in practice require an increase in energy use).
As for me, I've done my own experiments in the lab (though they are by no means proof - they were fairly simplistic) and studied the theory. I believe that climate change is real and is happening now. But I don't think we can blame it for every drought, flood or cyclone when we have non-climate change valid explanations for such recent events (El Niño in the case of the past Summer's lack of rain in Australia). Climate change may have had an influence but it isn't likely to be the sole or even dominant cause and it's misleading at best for anyone to claim that it is.
One of the real issues with climate change that I have is that most research into it seems to ignore the effects of both global dimming and heat islands. There's just no point in measuring temperature anywhere near cities when we know they are artificially heated above background levels even without climate change. Many seem to conveniently ignore this. Likewise global dimming must surely have an impact even though there is a lack of certainty as to the extent. Ignorance or uncertainty is no excuse for sloppy reasearch producting dire conclusions, especially not when so much is potentially depending on that research.
The oil situation also attracts bias by its very nature although there are fewer strong incentives than with climate change and a narrower range of opinions.
Oil companies ultimately lose if the oil does dry up. Their incentive is to maintain high consumption as long as possible so all the oil is used. They thus have an incentive to deny that oil supplies will peak until it actually happens. After that, their incentive reverses to promoting peak oil as reality in order to justify rising prices and keep government hands off their profits, arguing that the money is needed to invest in expensive alternatives to conventional oil.
Oil consumers have much the same incentive prior to the peak. Deny that supplies will peak for as long as possible lest a panic start and the exporting countries increase the price. But once it actually happens, companies have an incentive to adapt as fast as possible to ensure long term profitability while governments have an incentive to deny that supplies have peaked lest that scare exporters into reducing production voluntarily and worsening the immediate crisis.
Of course, businesses promoting alternatives to oil do have an incentive to create panic although they are mostly pushing climate change (rather than fossil fuel shortages) at the moment since it achieves the same end result and is politically a more successful argument at present. That said, the Hydro in Tas did run the fossil fuel depletion argument periodically from the late 1950's to the early 1980's and even the Victorian brown coal industry (arguing that coal was far more plentiful than oil or gas) used it in the 70's so it's nothing new.
Technically valid arguments they certainly were, but those pushing them had an obvious bias toward alternatives and an incentive to overstate the urgency of the problem which in practice is just what they did. Ultimately right with the outcome (a finite resource
must run out eventually if there is ongoing consumption) but far too early with the timing.
For those who have followed the oil situation for a while, and I first heard of peak oil in 1988, it is all falling disturbingly into place. Big oil starting to acknowledge the finite nature of oil rather than saying there's plenty. Surplus capacity close to zero. Discovery continues to trend down and consumption continues to trend up. Major importers moving to lock up supplies and exporters doing likewise. War in the Middle East. All the things we've been expecting for years and all happening now.
It is undeniable that the oil supply situation is a LOT tighter than it was 20 or even 5 years ago. And the gap between the optimists and pessimists is, with a couple of notable exceptions, frighteningly close. When oil companies start saying their primary resource will be delining in a decade and the pessimists say it already is then it seems we're damn close to hitting peak production. The point has arrived where outright denial no longer makes sense, hence the shifting in public position from some of the major oil companies in recent times.
IMO the most likely scenario is that we get seriously whacked over the head by oil within a decade and probably quite a bit sooner. Then we go down the "The Future Is Electric" track as far as we can plus a serious attempt at coal liquefaction and conversion of road vehicles to natural gas.
And the electricity will come from where? Back to nuclear, coal and some more big dams I expect with a modest contribution from alternatives, primarily wind and geothermal (on a global basis). In the Australian context we'll likely rely more on coal and geothermal and less on nuclear and new hydro than the rest of the world, but I do think we'll end up with some nuclear and a modest amount of new hydro.