I supposed that applies to both sides. Much like the assertion from former Vice President, Al Gore that the ocean is going to rise by 20 feet. This assertion from the lips of a politician should be trumped by the facts – as determined by credible scientists without an agenda (we do exist). Politicians have turned a good debate with facts that support BOTH sides into a “crazy alarmist” versus “evil denier” freak show.

[JR: On our current emissions path, the ocean will rise 20 feet (in fact it will rise more than 80 feet and eventually 250 feet ) -- but not by 2100. Gore didn't say 2100.]

Staffing that understands the problem is a big step forward.

Somewhere the understanders need to give way to the solvers if there is anything to be done about it short of demands for Draconian laws.

The press’s coverage of this — and in particular Revkin’s — illustrates what has been a fundamental problem with their coverage of Global Warming in general — that is, that they treat it as a matter of opinion, or a popularity contest as to whether AGW is occurring, whether it is serious, and whether we should respond.

They simply fail to understand that the science is what it is — and that increasingly, there is not only no doubt it is occurring and that it is a result of humans, but that it is the single biggest threat humanity has ever faced.

It doesn’t matter whether a majority “believe” that, and it is irresponsible to be “balanced” in reporting on AGW. At some point, facts have to matter; empirical observations and informed assessments by knowledgeable people have to trump empty assertions by ideologically motivated hacks.

We are where we are with global warming precisely because the journalists have totally failed to understand science and how to report it.

Two MacArthur winners in the cabinet? What a difference a competent Executive makes!