Everybody is jumping all over William Broad's piece on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
in today's New York Times
-- and rightly so. The story, which aims to show that scientists are uncomfortable with Gore's movie for being alarmist, uses somewhat dubious sources to advance a rather lame thesis and gets most of its 'facts' -- which are scant to begin with -- wrong in the process. Here's the story
. And some of the reaction:
My only question, the thing I just can't fathom, is why Broad chose to write such a pathetic piece in the first place.