Wow. Revkin spends a lot of time on a secondary point of Bryce’s that may or may not have been sloppily made, and he buries the following:
Bryce’s decision to torque his piece toward undercutting action on CO2 ends up distracting readers from other points he makes that are correct (see one dissection by Kenneth Silber).
Revkin’s “takedown” has been widely praised. The Silber post is far better.