Yes it is quite good journalism -- well-sourced, even-handed, good context and lots of specific information to back up the thesis. And I agree with the conclusion that “The cacophony of screaming does not help” the debate over Global Warming and what to do about it.

This informative article offers diverse perspectives from the scientific community about Al Gore's film on Global Warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." The article presents this topic rather fairly by presenting a variety of viewpoints, including claims that Al Gore may be overly alarmist in parts of his film. The report closes with a statement that Al Gore generally has the facts on his side, in spite of a few exaggerations.

William Broad gives voice to a host of Al Gore's detractors in the scientific community. By not including the voice of non-scientists, Broad keeps the scope of the article narrow enough that it remains very informative and un-politicized- no easy feat when the subject is Al Gore.

Main stream news needs to start reporting important background information on their sources--like where do these skeptic "scientists" get funding for their research? The issue is raised, but ironically in the context of questioning Al Gore's statement that much of the skeptical science is funded by the energy industry. The New York Times proof: one skeptic's claim that he does not receive funding from the energy industry. Well, where does he get his funding from? As usual, the New York Times does not expend the energy to investigate and/or report relevant background information on its sources, instead they amplify their claims in this article: "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype. --Does anyone else notice a pattern ... More »

A dozen good sources. I would like to see a little more detail in the evidence, but this article does a good job of finding the positions on global warming that might bring people together.

"Is this good journalism?" Depends upon what your looking for. Innuendo and half truths abound. This article may be the final last ditch effort by the Gray Lady to impinges on the truth.... mans detrimental effect on the climate. It surly sounds like a 'Rapt..hype' completely missing factual reporting and informed opinion ...see Debunking on grist!!!!!

This is a uesful article in two ways: 1) That Al Gore is very good at "Seeing the forest for the trees" and 2) That there is serious debate among the scientific community about the issue of climate change, which comprises vastly complex science and methods. It is also instructive that Gore and his supporters, along with his detractors tend to agree on the basics. In light of Gore's massive appeal on the issue with his film, it is right to have constructive discussion on the issue.

This story does not give examples of the 'incorrect claims' other than a hypothetical situation that Gore presented that shows what would happen if both polar icecaps melt completely, and the fallacy that since there were no "killer hurricanes" in 2006 implies that the horrible ones in 2005 are not connected to global warming in any way. This is a bit of insidious word-wrangling to make small discrepancies look large. Smells like fish to me.

Careful attention to quotation marks shows one scientist attacking one claim that Al Gore didn't actually make. Especially note "'...this' threatened change" on page two. Other criticisms don't hold up. Gore doesn't dispute that papers question climate change -- he questions who funds that research.

The harshest criticism was that it "may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” "[Al Gore] is a polarizing figure.."? He separates the wheat from the chaff of good science, perhaps. Dr. Hanson pointed to the lack of huge hurricanes this year as proof that global warming isn't true. In doing so, Dr. Hanson provides a perfect example of Bad Science. Why was this story printed? No new information; rehashed and rebuted opinions. Zero.