Scientists Revolt Against Global Warming Fearmongering

[Final-Fan]

Sqrl said:

Final-Fan said:

"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?

Well, to be honest, some of it was probably just based on not thinking about the scale involved.  As you say, when it's a massive 900-page whatever, it's going to be pretty thorough, and there's time to cover a lot of ground (even if the first part would, if correct, make it not strictly necessary), etc. etc.  A short article that flew from subject to subject, staying just long enough to throw some counterpoint or other like throwing a can of paint at a fence, would be quite a different thing.  

Another thing was that the paper seems to have been produced by some organization that (going by the name) seems to have been set up for the sole purpose of rebutting the IPCC, which would make me go in with a skeptical eye as to their own potential bias.  But that name is, frankly, literally all I know about them right now, so I'm well aware it would be foolish to say they actually DO have bias coloring their response.   

However, I remain deeply skeptical of any claim that significant warming would benefit in the short term.  Even if a stable ecology at higher temp. might be better, I'm pretty confident (despite admitted lack of expertise) that there would be serious rearranging of arable land, water resources, etc. that would hurt us for some time, and human response to the changes might be destructive of what good might supposedly happen.  I suppose I ought to do the research (I'm willing to be shown wrong) ... but I'm lazy sometimes.