If I may be permitted an aside that is about blogging in general, rather than climate change in particular:
It's not clear where exactly newspapers sit on the endangered species list, but as their circulation numbers dwindle and their influence wanes, it becomes more and more common for their footsoldiers to lash out at the forces that will ultimately replace them entirely.
There is an example today in the National Post , a publication in more imminent danger of extinction than most. Commentator Adam Radwanski condemns the blogworld as somehow more narrowminded than conventional journalism, and he declares: "A newspaper can be liberal or conservative in its editorial stance, but there simply aren't enough ideologues in any given city for it to be sustainable as a one-sided pamphlet."
This either proves that Radwanski, like too many of his journalist colleagues, doesn't read his own enthusiastically ideological "pamphlet" or that he is speaking in prescient terms about the Post's sustainability. Either way, he's out of step.
I regret that we can't post a more useful link to his column: the Post insists that you have a subscription to read it. And soon enough, even that won't help ...
Get yourself a blog, Adam, while you still can.