Scientists Revolt Against Global Warming Fearmongering

[Sqrl]

Final-Fan said:

Sqrl said:

Final-Fan said:
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. 

FUD is sort of one of those non-specific things though - what specifically do they get wrong? 

This is the issue with the pro-AGW side of the debate recently - they work harder to discredit the source than they do to actually address the points being made.  I mean your own assessment admits that you are going from "appearances" from the "surface".  I mean I appreciate that you might no have the time to read a nearly 900 page document but to just call it FUD and be done is itself just that. FUD.

"It's not happening -- well, even if it is we aren't causing it -- well, even if we are, warming is good!"  You wouldn't be tempted to see that sort of thing as a shotgun attempt to cast as much doubt as possible over as much stuff as possible?  

It sounds like you may be aware of the following and just using my post to point out a fault of others, but just to make sure:  you are bearing in mind that I'm not saying it necessarily is FUD, even if the characterization is fair, which I also do not state as a fact?  (It's not like I'm writing a news piece titled "Do Republicans Eat Babies?" after all.)

Also, does FUD have to be untrue?   

Actually to me it is a thorough approach to addressing their points: 

Have you never told someone "Not only are you wrong, but even if you're right your solution is ill-concieved."? 

Actually the fact that you weren't saying it was necessarily FUD is part of what bugged me. So not only was it casting doubt on the report without substantiation but it was a non-statement as well...you didn't even commit to it.  Do you see what I mean by this?

Finally, I don't think FUD is inherantly false but to me it implies a deliberate intent to mislead or to be dishonest. This is kind of why I threw it back - I wanted to make the point that it doesn't feel nice to have it thrown in your face - especially when you are truly sincere.

I can tell you that I hold my views honestly and with conviction, and from interaction with others (like Anthony Watts) I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or the sincerity of those who produced the report we are discussing.  This lack of reason to suspect their sincerity is at the heart of this exchange actually.  What reason is there to suspect them?