The essence of this story comes from a single scientist. While the story begins with relatively neutral biographical info, it allows only a brief denial quote from the accused (supposedly from the Washington Post but I can't find it there), and claims that "Calls ... went unanswered". This already unbalanced story ends with more accusations from dubious sources making more unsubstantiated claims.

The article starts well with an attempt to present a balanced viewpoint of Karl, head of "Obama's new Climate Change office." Then it degrades into depending almost solely on the opinion of one person -- a peer -- who is critical of him. Too light on facts and statistics to be meaningful or informative.

Who are these critics from "both sides"? You can't make a claim and then only include one critic.