This blog takes apart a NYT article that smears Al Gore. Taking note of the proponderance of anonymous and biased sources in the NYT article, I couldn't help but think of the work we do on NewsTrust. An important read with lots of links to back up the assertions made.

Supports it's points with evidence and links. In some cases it's arguments against the NY Times pieces amount to "he said, she said" with no resolution. Provides background on Don Easterbrook that should have been in the NY Times article. A useful supplement to the NY Times story, but you have to read this one carefully too.

Dissembles the innuendo of corporate hack. I think I know why the times publish this, to be fair and balanced, a lot like faux news. David Roberts does a service which the NYtimes may find challenging to embrace. The pre-knowlage??? one wonders how drudge knew.

This is a wonderful example of using point by point arguments, combined with specific source and factual citations, to successfully and logically refute something. Kudos

Interesting to read this after reading the Times piece yesterday. I was definitely asking myself the same questions while reading the NYT article, because there is a lack of sources to back up the claims that "many scientists" say such and such. After watching a TV talking head go crazy over this article and misinterpreting it by a factor 10 times more off-target than the article misinterpreted the so-called mistakes made by Gore, I must again congratulate the propagandic noise machine of the status quo. Bravo. You've confused the US into another 10 years of 'debate' over this issue.

Nails it, especially pointing out that these "scientists" (two of three are really just professional climate change deniers) are attacking straw men, that is, arguments Gore never made. I don't think this is the NYT's most egregious error of all time, however. Remember Judith Miller?

My favorite motto/mantle for the nytimes for an unfortunate long time(i.e.chinese scientist;Pres.Clinton...still waiting for real apology;killing the remote audio device story about GWBush during the "debates";the "public relations" for the Iraq War ...etc.,etc.) has been, more appropriately I believe..."NOT FIT TO PRINT THE NEWS"!!!

As a story about those in the scientific community with skeptical views of the Gore's presentation of global warming, I thought it was a fine story. There was no hyperbole and the comments were fully attributed. I didn't see the use of inflammatory claims or language by the writer, nothing that showed any "lean" toward a point of view. I must say after reading some of the reviews I was expecting to see something unprofessional and clearly biased. Sorry, I didn't see it and I really looked. There was never a claim by the writer that "many scientists" disagreed with Gore's assessment. Again, I looked for that and didn't see it. All opinions were in quotes and the writer qualified his sources as "part of the scientific community" ... More »