Apparently union regulations require all climate bloggers to weigh in on Bill Broad’s story in today’s New York Times about Al Gore etc. In brief, there’s not much more I could add to what Chris Mooney and Andrew Dessler have said:
- “surprised it didn’t happen sooner” (Mooney) given that Gore was largely solid on the science but strayed a couple of times from the mainstream consensus: “Why include the 1 to 5 percent of more questionable stuff, and so leave onself open to this kind of attack?”
- Is this all he’s got? (Dessler) A story that largely draws on predictable scientific outliers to criticize Gore is a story stating the obvious. We know Richard Lindzen didn’t like the movie. For Broad to make the case that there is unease in the fat scientific middle – “rank-and-file scientists” – he needs better than this.
If you look at the comments over on Gristmill and here on my own blog in a post that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Roger Pielke Jr., you’ll see why I was tempted to publish a new edition of my semi-regular “Pielke watch” feature. But I’m awfully busy, and this whole thing where I have to be Roger’s lead cheerleader just takes too much time.