I have no problem with a leading climate scientist taking issue with how the media portrays his profession. And if Gavin Schmidt would have kept his criticism of recent press coverage limited to the UK, he'd be on semi-solid ground. (He'd also be vulnerable to charges of mischaracterizing this coverage as one big "fact-free" monolith.) But Schmidt leaves reality behind when he goes after two American journalists in this manner:
Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators "“ Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado "“ have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts.
No doubt Schmidt is being sarcastic here, for surely he doesn't mean that two "prominent and respected US commentators" would be advocating for "fact-free" journalism. No, what Schmidt is really saying is that all this stuff about the IPCC ...
