Will New York Times get Pulitzer for Global Warming debunker?

Right. If any other body of scientists ahm got it a little bit wrong, they'd be laughed out of the gang. Not global warmers. Gore relied on their little bit of wrongness, and doesn't admit the specific errors and false claims. He just keeps on being wrong. This is like saying two plus two is five - some people just don't care to learn the true facts.

New York Times comes out with quoting the dissenters on global warming in March 13, 2007 piece From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype by William J. Broad

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The real horror however is children are being shown An Inconvenient Truth in school, in elementary school, and in high school and colleges, but are not being shown the rebuttal: The Great Global Warming Swindle. The Great Global Warming Swindle was available on Google videos Monday night, but is no longer available.

http://www.google.com/search?q=GREAT+GLOBAL+WARMING+SWINDLE&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

still available here

http://www.passionateamerica.com/global-warming-is-a-lie-the-great-global-warming-swindle-video/

Glenn Beck interviews Easterbrook and Patrick Michaels Cato Institute

glenn asks how come this has been so widely spun? Michaels agrees finally the New York Times comes out and says this isn't happening as stated... it's about the money some six billion dollars grants and so forth...

Beck says this is a milestone, the New York Times article... there's been a state of fear, its being taught in schools...

Easterbrook those who don't sign on to it are said to be stupid or said to have some financeial interest...

Easterbrook explains details! Get the transcript

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/gb.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
New York Times
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

more excerpts

But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

excerpt

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Check our site for more on this issue. We mentioned Easterbrook's work and criticism a while back.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming