Here's a pathetic article:
The author's chosen preoccupation is with the output of James Hansen. I say 'chosen' because, out of the thousands of climate scientists in the world warning of doom, one would have to make a deliberate choice in targeting any particular one for criticism.
And the nature of that criticism is truly pathetic: the author doesn't like Hansen's choice of words and tone of voice. And this is apparently enough - in the author's eyes - seriously to undermine the content of what Hansen has to say.
I've been reading spiked for a while now and I am repeatedly struck by how often their articles are similarly vacuous - intended as serious comment but actually advancing no substantial arguments.