I’m not sure what gave you the false impression that I am “not disturbed” by Will’s columns. I’ve criticized them severely many times in this space, and so have many of my colleagues, whose work I’ve referenced. I am reacting to the criticism leveled at Andrew Revkin, which has ballooned completely out of proportion to any error of false balance he may have made. (Let me ask you Max: Do you believe that he is “evil,” as Michael Tobis, a climate scientist at the University of Texas, has repeatedly said?)

From the beginning, I have argued that Revkin’s work should be judged in its totality, and I firmly believe that any fair critique would conclude that no reporter has done more to raise public awareness of climate issues than Andrew Revkin. So in blog postings and comments on others’ blogs I have asked again and again what people hope to gain by going to war against Andrew Revkin. I’ve never gotten an answer.

That in itself is my answer: This isn’t really about rational discourse and solving one of the most vexing problems humanity has ever faced. It’s about posturing, emotion, extremism, and viewing anyone who disagrees with you as a demon.

Actually, nothing in Romm’s 2,000-word attack on Revkin was “parody.” He was deadly serious, and what he said impugned the reputation of a dear friend and one of the best journalists in America.

I’m really not sure what Romm and his supporters hope to accomplish by savaging Andy. As someone who has covered climate change since 1982, and who has known Andy for that same period of time, I’m truly astounded and thoroughly disgusted.

If you want to be civil and play fair, I’ll be the first to support you even if I disagree with you. If you want to defame someone, particularly a friend, I will fight back.

You say, “Your headline proves my point. Why is it okay for you to make such a exaggerated headline, which is apparently aimed at showing I’m guilty of what I accuse others of doing, but not okay for me to point out that Revkin is guilty of what he accuses others of doing.”

I have nothing wrong with taking a journalist to task for errors. But I believe it should be done civilly, and with respect. Those two words did not come to mind when I read your nearly 2,000 word post.

Perhaps you just read the headline and not the first paragraph. The headline is a PARODY of Romm’s approach in his own hyberbolic attacks on Andy Revkin, including a wholly unwarranted and fallacious attack on his journalistic integrity.

Revkin may have made a mistake, his coverage overall may not be perfect, and fair, civil criticism certainly would be well within bounds. But he does deserve to be treated with respect. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be Romm’s style.

In fact, that style can be so laughably over the top that it simply invites parody.

He would not, however, allow the comment that showed he was wrong to appear on his blog, which Tom posted in the update above.