In May 2006, at the time of the theatrical release of An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary of former Vice President Al Gore’s presentation about global warming, The New York Times published an article by Andrew C. Revkin, in which Revkin reported that mainstream scientists, while taking issue with details in the film, embraced its premise, subscribing to Gore’s ‘main point.’ But 10 months later, shortly after An Inconvenient Truth won the Academy Award for best documentary, the Times ran an article by William J. Broad that again purported to represent the views of mainstream scientists on the accuracy of the film, while citing numerous scientists who are overt global warming skeptics or who have challenged fundamental facts leading to the conclusion that global warming is real and largely caused by humankind. On May 22, 2006, Revkin wrote: In interviews and e-mail exchanges, many climate specialists who have seen the film quibbled about details but tended to agree with Eric Steig, a University of Washington geochemist who posted his reactions at the Web log realclimate.org after a recent Seattle screening: ”The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the […]
Tuesday, March 20th, 2007
Tale of Two NYTimes Reporters and The Gore Film
Author:
Source: Media Matters for America
Publication Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2007 8:26pm EST
Link: Tale of Two NYTimes Reporters and The Gore Film
Source: Media Matters for America
Publication Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2007 8:26pm EST
Link: Tale of Two NYTimes Reporters and The Gore Film
Stephan: I urge all SR readers on Wednesday to try to catch as much of the Gore Congressional testimony and questioning as they can.