Clearly, anologies have little effect here (particularly as I included the "climate change denier's" to show that academics who were quite credible, extremely well qualified, and absolutely in a position to make statements about the climate get maligned in ways they do not deserve, even if they are wrong; we don't have that situation here, as there are plenty of credentialed people with wild ideas about Jesus and early Christianity, yet basically none of these think he didn't exist).
So let's make things much clearer. If saying that Jesus Christ never existed is so taboo, why do books on the subjects written by amateurs or professionals outsell any actual scholarship? Well, for one because it's really hard to convince people who know what they are talking about, but far, far easier to convince those who don't. Most grad students are basically slaves until they get a doctorate, and then try desperately to get tenure. Carrier, on the other hand, made his name as a grad student for talking about things largely outside his field, and rather than get a grant to do research like scholars do, he got his blog audience to pay him to write his first book (which didn't actually touch on the historical Jesus, as that will be the next book, but did manage to misuse a lot of math to be convincing).
This has been going on for a long time. Arthur Drews came out with Die Christusmythe (the Christ-myth) in 1909, followed shortly by Die Christusmythe II: Die Zeugnisse für die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, eine Antwort an die Schriftgelehrten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der theologischen Methode (the Christ-myth II: the evidence for the historicity of Jesus: a reply to the literalists with a focus on the theological method). A few years later, he wrote (ostensibly) a response to Schweitzer's bashing of the mythicists with a survey of some 3 dozen mythicists over the (then) past 50 years (this was a few years before 1930).
Of course, we can go back even more in time to see mythicists, or fast forward to Wells (before Dunn's response made him change his mind), Murdock, Freke & Gandy, Doherty, and others. However, as the time from Strauss and Bauer's works became more and more distant, and the arguments by the 3 dozen or so surveyed by Drews (and Drew himself) were answered again and again, and the only thing that changed was an increasing knowledge of the past and better tools to study (which hurt, not helped, the mythicists), we see fewer and fewer scholars buying into what is mainly now an internet phenomenon.
You can see bias all you want, but when the same questions answered in full get asked again some hundred years later (and by those who didn't know these questions were asked before, nor bothered to find out what answers were provided), perhaps the reason the specialists in fields related to Jesus studies don't write books about why jesus likely never existed is for the same reason nobody spends lots of time and effort trying to reinvent the wheel. Until there's a new question, or new evidence, or a new reason to look at old evidence other than the same tired, worn-out (and usually factually incorrect) arguments that Jesus was e.g., just another dying-and-rising godman (something Frazer spent years and many, many pages trying to show a century ago, until he couldn't make his case and ended up with something much less than he wanted), what's the point?