No, because that would mean buying into your doomer bullshit.
Bob, I agree with you and don't think anyone should be forced to buy into anyone's doomer bullshit (or, for that matter, watch doomer porn).
The key question is rather where you will draw the line. If one assumes that every different view or every summary, analysis or piece of news that does not fall in the Yes, We Can!
basket belongs in the Doomer Bullshit (or Doomer Porn) bin, then there is at least a teeny–weeny possibility that important perspective is being unfairly dismissed.
In fact, I think you could say that in such a case, missed perspective is almost certain.
The IPCC has, after all, for twenty–six years failed to include the 2nd biggest GHG in its estimates in any meaningful way, meaning the very way that needs to be considered because of the role that GHG has played several times before in the geological record, a role that put an extra contribution to the planet's biggest extinction events of all time.
On the other hand, I can see the argument that since IPCC didn't choose to include these worries, or to include the potential of just this 2nd biggest (currently) GHG, then the same IPCC had very good reasons for not including them, thus making everyone else on the planet even chatting about these worries, some sort of bat–sh@t crazy doomer porn addicted apocalyptic moron–alarmists.
I believe, however, that upon closer scrutiny, you will find many of the points of criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are well founded, and that for a number of mundane and perfectly understandable human–nature reasons, the Panel has failed us.