If it looks like FUD, sounds like FUD, and feels like FUD, it's probably FUD. Just a theory, but I'd argue that it's probably easier to get grants and to get published when you're "saving the world from disaster," as opposed to the much less romantic title of "the cyclical nature of ocean temperature and its effects on global climate." Probably more press and attention too.

How about we stop polluting and start recycling because it's the right thing to do, instead of irrational fears of Waterworld-like outcomes.

(Not a global warming denier, just a global warming more evidence want-to-see-er)