I agree, a good article. Their examples of Easterbrook (a geologist who doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to climate science, but is often treated as an expert in the field by the mainstream media) and Richard Lindzen (who is a smart climate scientist, but also likes to be 'controversial' as with his stance on smoking and lung cancer, and is betting on a scenario [negative feedbacks saving us] for which there is very little evidence) are good ones. Guys like this get a lot of press because there aren't a lot of 'skeptic' scientists to choose from.
I especially like the concluding paragraph.
That 72 percent of Americans still believe that global warming exists (down from 80 percent last year) seems a miracle, given the quality of much recent reportage. The eve of the Copenhagen talks would be an optimal time for American journalism to start treating science with more care.