It would be one thing to report on the findings of some researchers at Duke, but this story goes on to cherry-pick from other studies, leaving me with the distinct impression that there is an agenda being run, not information being dispensed.

Author gives a summary of research published in Nature about global warming. Main point is that "global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions," noting that even an increase of 11 degrees is unlikely. Though the story reports that some increase is likely, it doesn't say how big the increase will be, and doesn't acknowledge that a recent report in Science suggests that an increase of 4 degrees could lead to a 3' rise in ocean levels.

This story suggests, though does not quite come out and say, that the global warming concern is overblown. It uses extreme statements regarding warming as straw men to argue that the situation is not so bad. It does not tell the reader how good or bad the science of the Duke study is. It gives no scientific commentary on the Duke study. It does not inform the reader of the consequences of the warming the Duke researchers (unnamed!) acknowledge is happening. It finally ends with a guilt by association argument combined with a disparagement of Al Gore, and a suggestion that the global warming issue is really just political. In all, this story is uninformative and misleading.

The story provides sensational data but misses the point and is presented in a very misleading way that there is nothing to worry about and that people like Al Gore who try to warn us about the issue of global warning are just scaremongers. This story is really a joke... Even if it is true that temperature will not rise by as much as the worse case scenario, we are not given what the actual prediction is from Duke University scientists. And then they forgot to mention that even a minimal rise in temperature will result in climatic change and melting of polar ice. This is a perfect exemple of disinformation...

I did not find that the study deals adequately with the complexity of the global warming issue. One study is insufficient to support the conclusion that seem to be drawn. I would like to see much more detail from the original study so a reader can determine more accurately how much weight the study should be given.