Scientists Revolt Against Global Warming Fearmongering

[Final-Fan]

I doubt I'll be participating heavily in this thread, but I definitely want to pop in and provide the ACTUAL EDITORIAL everyone is talking about in the OP.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html

After reading it, here are my initial thoughts (having little to no familiarity with most cources cited):
1. The overall tone is not something I would expect in such a publication as I imagine the C&EN to be; if I was just looking at the editorial I would assume it was a blog post.
2. He quotes a US gov't report that uses language that does NOT seem to me to indicate a scientific audience but rather seems tailored for (more or less) public consumption.
3. The whole thing is pretty much a polemic, which I would not normally expect of an editorial (regardless of tone). (Rather, I would expect an editorial to argue FOR one side, instead of simply AGAINST the other.)

After thinking on these points, I would guess (guess, mind you) that most of those who wrote in were more outraged that he would put such a thing in their organization's publication than they are outraged that he would believe or say or even publish (elsewhere) the exact same thing. What outrage was left is probably largely due to citing the report I mention in point 2 and expecting the audience of C&EN to respect its scientific value.

On the other hand, he says that the report of the NIPCC, which I believe Sqrl mentioned, can be summed up as claiming "that global warming probably isn’t happening; if it is happening, it’s not due to human activity; and, besides, a “warmer world will be a safer and healthier world for humans and wildlife alike.”" If true, this appears on the surface to be scattershot FUD. And in particular I would say that the third claim is the one I am most skeptical of.