I think most of the people making this criticism are misunderstanding both the intended audience for the article and the point the writer was trying to make. The article was focused on problems Miami will likely be facing in the next 40 years due to rising sea levels and their pattern of development over the past 50 years.

It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"

Again I think you're right that it won't help sway peoples thoughts on the subject _alone_ but in aggregate if all the rhetoric from one side became harder to target by the opposing pundits then maybe that would help at least slow down conversion or heel digging.

I don't know if I agree with the GP that this article would be considered fluff, or that it could be an easy target for pundits, but I definitely see that pattern pop up a lot. ACLU/EFF frequently disappoint me with completely valid points steeped in FUD and bad methodologies that make them easy to rebut. The opposition finds the errors, turns around, gets their base hype on some key emotional rebuttals or mocking while ignoring the real valid points, and all we end up with is stronger division between sides.