"Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them." - John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011

"...I somewhat agree with Romm. There does seem to be a perpensity of us towards producing masss volumes of articles when I feel sometimes we should be spending more time critiquing." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011

"I am pretty much done reading Romm. His knee-jerk attacks on anything remotely contradictory to his own narrative as "flawed" are irksome in the extreme." - thingsbreak [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

"I don't care for Romm either, [...] For the sake of accuracy, we can afford to wait until the heavy hitters have weighed in, we don't have to pretend to an authority we don't have." - nealjking [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

"Romm is waspish and curt, [...] but I have noticed that SkS tends to run into trouble when we do our own analysis." - Albatross (Julian Brimelow) [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

"I think our own analysis needs to be vetted externally or by those absolutely qualified on the subject matter prior to being put out there." - Robert Way [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

"Romm was the one to rubbish the Schmittner study. He got burnt. Tough titties." - Rob Painting [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

"Maybe Romm is getting a touch jealous of SkS's rising fame." - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011

In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online . In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science was found to be even too inaccurate for fellow alarmist Joe Romm of Climate Progress,This was met with both admission and denial,