So? If the Koch’s are the evil people you claim they wouldn’t have even allowed that and just buried the “Evidence” and him. I also haven’t read that study so who knows what he was “converted” by.
Judith Curry used to be called the “Queen of Global Warming” at least in Skeptic circles, however, she changed sides and I believe she, like Bjorn Lomberg, thinks that AGW will probably be worse than most skeptics think, but the societal costs (keeping the third world in abject poverty) is way worse than the environmental costs.
I’d also like to point out you’re using a terrible source by quoting desmogblog as its basically just a skeptic smear blog.
Also, your assumption makes a complete ass and idiot out of you, because that’s not even close to what I believe as you state in the last two paragraphs. I firmly believe that AGW is an issue, but isn’t going to kill everything or even really harm anything. I also am fine with upending the power generation by switching to nuclear (which the environmentalist crowd hates while loving solar and wind even though they’re not even close to environmentally friendly) as it allows for human flourishing (Epstein’s position) and in general makes our living environment (and often times the environment in general) cleaner.
Lastly, I’d like to say that proponents of AGW do have skin in the game too since governments provide most of the grants for research (and money to the colleges that employ most of them) and they have a specific interest in the outcome since all current proposed fixes involved expanding governments to unheard levels so that they can regulate and tax EVERYTHING we do. That means more power and money so I’d say there definitely is something to be gained by this being at least a believed severe issue. Just something to think about.