If believing things such as "humans need to stop pumping CO2 into the air before we destroy the environment" looks like a sign of bias, then you're as bad as a left-wing parody of right-wingers.

The bias is not in believing that global warming is happening (it seems to be) or that we're the cause of it (we probably are) or even that it's a bad thing (it seems likely millions may well die if we don't get a handle on it). The bias is in taking those facts and then implicitly saying "therefore if you don't support my policy suggestions, or even try to examine the models behind them, you are insane and not worth taking seriously."

The fact is, a lot of global warming remedies are at best suboptimal [1] and yet are impossible to argue with without being called an anti-AGW crank and/or corporate shill. The first step towards actually dealing with the problem is to remove the shrill note of hysteria the environmental movement has been using to drown out reasoned opposition and examine the actual merits of policies rather than grading them on their emotional appeal or adherence to ideological principles.

[1] I could post specific examples of this, but the comment is long enough as it is and I don't want to derail. If people are interested I'll gladly put some more time in and make a full discussion post on it.

If believing things such as "humans need to stop pumping CO2 into the air before we destroy the environment" looks like a sign of bias

Using the expressions "pumping CO2 into the air" and "destroy the environment" sure looks like a sign of bias to me. As does choosing this way to frame the global warming debate.