Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position. Full Story »

Posted by Carl Pham
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Carl Pham - Jun 30, 2007 - 6:38 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
N638965977_3994_thumb
2.0
by Ben Ross - Oct. 1, 2008

Interesting to see what a few corporate buck will come up with. Poster child for week journalism. Miss the point to social effect of weather change, via hair splitting instead of correction and illumination all delivered right wing hack non scientist.

See Full Review » (9 answers)
P9110066_thumb
2.2
by Patricia Blochowiak - Oct. 1, 2008

This story needs links to the sources mentioned, since Right-Winger's so often misquote and misrepresent science at this point in history.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.0
by Nick Pollitt - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (2 answers)
N784110505_9530_thumb
3.0
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (2 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.1
by David Starr - Oct. 1, 2008

Excellent, balanced and thoughtful presentation of the global warming debate. Author presents specific examples. Well worth reading.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Carl Pham - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a good opinion piece, because it makes a focussed point -- the science of global climate change should not be exaggerated in either direction -- with clear language and well-sourced, concrete examples. Whatever you think of the current debate over anthropogenic climate change, and Mr. Gore's role in it, Mr. Taylor makes a strong case that the scientific facts have been distorted by more than one side. This should serve as a strong caution, and motivation for skepticism, when ... More »

See Full Review » (2 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.1

Average
from 6 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.9
Facts
3.5
Fairness
2.7
Information
3.0
Sourcing
3.7
Style
2.7
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
3.0
Context
2.5
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.2
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
4.2
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!