If “them” refers to only one of “he” and Roger Pielke Jr., then it should not have been “them”.

Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, “A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate,” that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The “middle stance” is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax [which is why I call them denier-eq’s] (see “Finally, Roger Pielke admits he supports policies that will take us to 5-7°C warming or more“).

Now if the top NYT reporter is pushing the mushy middle — if he writes things like “Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans (see “Note to media: Enough with the multiple hedges on climate science!“), if his stories have online headlines like Arctic Ice Hints at Warming, Specialists Say — why on Earth would it be news that the public is itself stuck in the mushy middle?

In the first paragraph, you appear to say those who support the middle stance are “denier-eq”, you name two people. However, a reader might think your only calling Roger the denier-eq.

In the second you say Andy Revkin is pushing he middle stance. As you just defined those pushing the middle as “denier-eq”, many readers would believe you place Andy in that group.

I noticed you posted 5 extremely long articles, and it’s barely 2pm. You must type like the wind!

I don’t call Andy a denier, as anybody who reads my post can tell. He is a serious journalist.

Contrary to whatever point you were making, he is a science reporter, indeed he is the NYT’s lead reporter on climate science. If he is going to do political analysis, he should do what the NYT and every other major media outlet does when a reporter writes analysis — they say it is analysis.

But that is really a side issue. Some day, perhaps, you will explain it whether you believe that on our current emissions path we are headed toward ” irreversible catastrophe” as Obama put it today. And if so, doesn’t that warrant more than $5 a ton of CO2.

Some day.