David Roberts has a long essay over at Grist complaining about “scolds” (The New York Times’s Andrew Revkin, in particular) who criticize others for making too much of the link between climate change and extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy.

Roberts’s commentary jumps off from a self-reflective post by Revkin about whether he is guilty of what one of his longtime sources, retired climate scientist Thomas Crowley, has called “reverse tribalism.” Roberts calls it “hippie punching” and as he explained, “it goes like this”:

An extreme weather event takes place; climate activists (and the occasional journalist) make a connection to climate change; and then, a pack of climate wonks and journalists descends, scolding activists for exaggerating, going overboard, exceeding the bounds of evidence, and “giving the other side ammunition.” (That last bit is crucial. The idea that the scolds are saving the activists from themselves is what gives the scolding a patina of public purpose. Otherwise it’s just self-righteous hectoring.)

It’s a thoughtful piece, but Roberts mischaracterizes what the scolds (and I count myself among them) are saying. A day before Revkin posted his piece about reverse tribalism, he’d written another one that warned against drawing too many conclusions about climate change from Hurricane Sandy. He also sent out a tweet saying, “Northeast storminess is not place to look for signals of greenhouse-driven global warming,” which prompted the following snarky reply from Roberts:

Revkin cited Roberts’s comment in his post and conceded, “I have sometimes perhaps been too eager to challenge definitive statements related to human-driven global warming for fear they will provide ammunition to those working to foment doubt and maintain stasis on our energy menu.” It should be clear, however, that in making those challenges, he and other scolds are not trying to “tamp down” discussions about climate change. They’re trying to steer them toward facts, and away from exaggerations, and this doesn’t mean, as Roberts put it, that everything has to be couched in “caveat-filled, probabilistic language.” But it does mean being accurate and precise (talking about specific knowns and unknowns rather than generalizing) and focusing on the big picture (the climatological context of a storm) rather than attribution (whether or not the event was “caused” by global warming).

For example, rather than writing that, “Sandy shows how climate change is increasing extreme weather around the world,” it’s better to write something like, “It’s unclear how climate change is affecting hurricanes, but global warming is undoubtedly causing sea level to rise, which exacerbates the storm surge from any cyclone that comes along.”

It seems like this is the kind of simple, contextualized explanation that Roberts wants, too. Like the scolds, he wants reporters to avoid the troubled waters of attribution stories and warns that asking if climate change caused an individual weather event is a “confusing question.” He also warns that when “climate hawks” answer that question with a simple, “yes,” they “cement that confusion.”

Unlike scolds, however, Roberts is willing to shrug off the simple, “yes,” and doesn’t think others should bother to explain the problems with it either. The reason is that be believes the debate about attribution science is really just a “semantic dispute over the meaning of ‘cause.’” To some extent, he’s right. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is fond of saying that, “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.