No, not Ginsberg's Howl this time. It's just that the hyenas are back, and while Revkin mostly gets it right, still it appears the NYT is trying to give them "fair and balanced" coverage.
A word of advice to the editors [yeah, riiight, like the big guys really read me] --- fair and balanced coverage would be pointing out when people are either too stupid to do science or they are are smart enough but are using their scientific credentials to lie to you.
A vigorous public debate on the costs and values of cutting carbon dioxide emissions vs the costs and values of not cutting carbon dioxides emissions deserves equal coverage of both sides, and lots of it. And it's a debate I'd like to see more of. But that's not what these people are actually debating.
Pseudoscience deserves plenty of coverage too, but only to point out the snake oil that it is, and to warn people away from it. Snake oil, in fact, might possibly be better for you.
addendum: revkin provides a cool link [pdf] in comments on one of his blog posts.