http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
2007-03-13 02:37:40 · 8 answers · asked by aiminhigh24u2 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Gore lost credibility a long time ago. Polar bears disappearing when they have doubled in number.
2007-03-13 02:40:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I thought the New York Times was a liberal media rag...at ant rate, this is a balanced article pointing out some potential fallacies, but, on the whole, Gore's advocacy here is admirable.
2007-03-13 09:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The general thesis that anthropogenic global warming is occurring is supported without objection in the story. The differences are in the magnitude of the effects (hurricanes, levels of sea rise, etc) in a given time frame.
2007-03-13 10:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting that you think a newspaper is telling someone to do anything. I read the article, and I saw SCIENTISTS quoted as saying they're concerned, but the New York Times didn't express an opinion in the article.
Is this what you call the "liberal media"?
2007-03-13 09:42:12 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The NY times has obviously gone conservative.
I will cancel my subscription.
2007-03-13 09:44:25 · answer #5 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So they're saying that Al Gore may have - gasp - exaggerated and erred in his documentary? Say it ain't so!
2007-03-13 09:43:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
jhl has the best response....award him the 10 pts!
2007-03-13 09:44:39 · answer #7 · answered by MaHaa 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
SNAP!
2007-03-13 09:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋