And attacking Chris for advocating for climate scientists is rather unfair.

NASA, MIT, the IPCC, the Defense Department and many, many more prominent sources recognize the very real and growing risk of climate change outside of the petty politics of the matter. A recent MIT study showed a 10% probability of a 12.4+ degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature by the end of this century. The same study showed a 100% probability of a greater than 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase over the same period.

To say such results range from bad to catastrophic is not an exaggeration. To say that many climate scientists are shocked and even afraid of the implications of their own research is not a lie.

The very scientist you hold up, James Hansen, has criticized the IPCC for being too conservative on a number of counts, including sea level rise. The IPCC has noted a potential rise of 19 to 59 centimeters over the next century. Hansen has claimed that a 5 meter rise is not out of the question.

But given the number of people hunting IPCC witches, is it any wonder that body is more conservative than Hansen on a number of key issues?

And while you generally disparage non-scientists who support the science and an appropriate response to a growing threat, the Defense Department prepares for world-wide climate changes powerful enough to disrupt national security.

There are attacks on scientists–especially those involved in the Climategate scandal. But that’s a handful of people, really. Mann, Briffa, Jones, Ammann, Wahl, maybe a few others. And there are institutional attacks on global warming, brought out by the usual suspects–Heartland Institute, CEI, and the like.

But the overwhelming majority of comment and complain that I see (and usually write about) concerns people like you, not scientists at all. It is the communicators (and what I would term serial exaggerators) that have everybody hot under the collar.

I believe global warming is real and needs to be addressed now. I was an enthusiastic supporter of candidate Obama’s energy proposals and am (a more tepid) supporter of President Obama’s plans. But I believe that global warming has been exaggerated by people like you, Joe Romm, and a cast of hundreds who have pushed the scientific message aside and have jumped out in front with claims that do not have the same level of scientific confidence than previously published reports in the IPCC and other places.

If you look at who’s being attacked, it’s Pachauri–who is emphatically not a scientist. It’s Phil Jones and Michael Mann, who are, but who have fairly obviously misbehaved, to put it charitably. It’s the IPCC–but because they are dragging gray literature into their reports and replacing science with articles from rock climbing magazines, and for stonewalling protests about the glacier mishap since 2004. There are 23 references to the WWF and Greenpeace in AR4. I’m not arguing their right to be heard–but they don’t produce peer-reviewed science.

It’s you and your like that most of us are really after–not the scientists. Look around–even James Hansen gets his share of respect in the lukewarmer and skeptic communities, for having the courage of his convictions and being consistent.

It’s the communicators who have done a miserable job, Mr. Mooney–they jumped out in front of the science and the scientists and now they (you) are getting attacked for that. The only one of you lot who looks better today than three months ago is Gavin Schmidt, mostly due to his manning the fort single handedly at Real Climate after Climategate broke. Where were you?

There is a war on science. But it’s not just the Republicans who engage in it. Science is in the middle and gets either misused or attacked by both sides. That’s not new. But you are a partisan player and you should be taking the heat for what’s going on–it’s not the scientists people are angry at.