Not Warming Up To Al

Suffering from the "must present both sides of an issue even when there is a general consensus that one side is fallacy" syndrome, the New York Times, in a piece on global warming critical of An Inconvenient Truth, cites scientists whose statements on global warming have been debunked. Of course, the debunked part isn't reported. Is the need to appear neutral so desperate that it supersedes fact for reporters?

From Media Matters (at the link are profiles of some of the discredited critics):

Broad wrote that "scientists are sensitive to [the film's] details and claims" and that Gore has received criticism not "only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists." But of the sources cited in the article, at least four have records of misinformation on the issue. Though three of these were identified as skeptics or as having expressed skepticism, in all four cases, their past statements or studies questioning global warming theory have been debunked or discredited by the scientific community -- which Broad did not report.