Hypocritical Left-wing Blog Can't Decide Who's Credible on Global Warming

The Center for American Progress's Think Progress blog attacked a Noel Sheppard post on NewsBusters and a handful of other conservative blogs today. Their crime? Citing climate change comments uttered by a weatherman.

Think Progress said:

The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman's junk science today. Matt Drudge links to NewsBusters' "marvelous" take on Coleman this morning. Red State [sic], Qando [sic], Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman's piece.

The right wing should check Coleman's credentials before touting his "scientific" work. As Coleman admits, his "expertise" is in weather - not climate change science. In fact, he "has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953."

Think Progress doesn't believe a mere "weatherman" should speak his mind on climate, but...

...as recently as November 5, Think Progress promoted the climate views of a politician over those of a bona fide climatologist:

This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC's Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, "I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see."

When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy "no longer belongs to the IPCC" and is "way outside the scientific consensus." He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...

As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime.

Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.

If Newsbusters was foolish for citing a mere weatherman on climate issues (which I don't for a moment believe), what would that make Think Progress for citing a mere politician?