> BlueRock: Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. Once you’ve calmed down…

Tom, why are you becoming so hysterically angry?!

> …go back and actually read what I wrote…

I clearly did. You can tell that because I’ve quoted you and pointed out glaring errors. Why have you ducked them? Is accuracy and honesty not important to you?

Perhaps you’re referring to “Let’s put aside the fact that Walsh probably didn’t write the “But they’re wrong” bit.” This does not help you – the word ‘wrong’ appears nowhere on the page you linked to.

> …what Greenfyre wrote…

“Evisceration” was too strong, I admit – but you really could do with taking a critical look at what you’re writing – see my previous comment and Greenfyre’s recommendation that “the onus is on you to clarify, substantiate and/or retract.”

> Then we can have an honest debate.

For that to happen you would need to respond to the clear errors in your defensive piece that fails to portray the widespread failure of journalists to convey the threat and urgency of climate change.

> My colleagues Max Boykoff and Roger Pielke, Jr. …

You consider the perpetually not-quite-right Pielke Junior a “colleague”? Not a good admission for those of us who have a reasonable grasp of the climate science misinformers, e.g.:

* http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/28/the-lies-of-roger-pielke-jr/

* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/another_pielke_train_wreck.php

* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/pielke_pity_party.php

> Johnson did not elaborate, even after he was asked to clarify who he felt was part of the “cabal”…

How do you know Johnson saw the comment that followed his? You don’t.

Also, your obvious attempt to portray Dr Romm as “partisan” and the ‘other side of the same coin’ to (radio weather presenter) Watts is just ignorant nonsense.

Finally, your belief that you “cover climate science in terms of risk, uncertainty, complexity, and nuance” is actually your prejudices and ignorance of the science clouding what climate scientists are telling us. There are many, many clear, unequivocal calls to action from the planet’s experts – here are just a few:

* The American Geophysical Union: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system … are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. … Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities.”

* American Physical Society: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. … The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

* The Geological Society of America: “This position statement summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming;…”.

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”

- American Chemical Society: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change… The costs of unchecked climate change in economic loss, human misery, and loss of ecosystem services are likely to be enormous.”

Many more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Your “nuanced” assessment of climate science is not superior to all of these scientific bodies and experts. If you are communicating anything other than the dire urgency or reducing carbon pollution, you are confused and failing the public.

It does not say that anywhere in Walsh’s article. How could you miss that? It’s just Watts doing what Watts always does: lie, twist and distort.

> Let’s put aside the fact that in his post, Romm lists Anthony Watts as a journalist…

Romm: “Anthony Watts does more than any person in the blogosphere to spread anti-scientific disinformation. Although he was a TV weatherman, he isn’t a ‘journalist’…”

So, your claim is 100% factually wrong. I note that in all of your rhetoric directed at Romm, you never actually give an example of where he is factually wrong.

Climate science journalism has, overall, been *atrocious* – and the sloppiness you have just demonstrated is an example of that.

You’re probably not going to like the evisceration performed here: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/climate-change-journalism-massacring-the-messengers/