Rational?

Let's go over it:

"However, the rest of her column shows none of the same appreciation for basic journalistic standards.

She starts by asking why newspapers are no longer trusted - a good question, and one that may indeed be answerable. However the column quickly goes off the rails. First off, her headline "When the warmest year in history isn't" doesn't appear to be related to any actual content. Possibly it refers to the 1934/1998 hoohah from last year (again see posts passim for discussion on its irrelevance to global warming). Journalists don't generally write their own headlines, but a vague connection to current events is the more usual practice. "

So, no point here, other than Galvin or whoever doesn't understand a headline, which he admits might not even be written by the author. So quibbling over nothing or simply demonstrating how stupid he is.
Score: 0 or negative

"Next, she gets the Oreskes' Science and society paper story completely wrong (it was a sampling of literature and survived numerous challenges to its validity - see here and here)."
No, she didn't get it "wrong" but merely pointed out that if you accept "Oreskes' Science" then it indicates something wrong with the science- namely the is a lack of debate. Science without debate is simply dogma not science.

"Then she uncritically quotes David Bellamy (a late-developing contrarian who used to present natural history programs on the BBC) who appears to think that an anti-GW article he wrote in 2004 is responsible for him not presenting BBC documentaries since 1994"

Well, so she quotes what someone has said. This is what reporters are suppose to do. That she is uncritical is hardly something one should find fault in a reporter.
Score: 0

"She then throws in a few completely untrue 'facts' (i.e. "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder" (not) and "in 2002, "

So is the idiot going to say that 2002 is warmest year ever, or is in second or third place, What does cooler mean dingbat?
And the trend has been cooling for 10 years.
Score: 0

"Arctic ice actually increased" (no it didn't) or that there 'has been no statistically significant warming since 1995″
If you remove 1998 as not being a trend [which is what is done commonly] then from 1995 there has no been significant warming, but it's slightly above being flat- it has NOT been cooling since 1995. But it's been cooling since 1998.
And the news reports of "experts" predicted in 2007 that we would have significantly less arctic ice in 2008 and later years. And in 2008 there was more arctic ice than in 2007.
Score: 0

"However, note that she is quoting Bellamy and Lindzen here, so that it can be plausibly claimed that she is just reporting the statements rather than endorsing their nonexistent truth value. Sneaky."

Sneaky is when reporter accurately quotes someone.
Rather than make some up whole cloth, don't use quotes but imply someone said something. Which pretty standard fare in today's "reporting", hence the poor standards in reporting she referred to in the beginning of the piece.

When is this guy going to get anything right?

"In fact, the only bit of original reportage in the piece comes from the email from me; the rest of the article is simply a cut-and-paste of untrue and unverified claims strung together in a facsimile of logical argument."

So, he likes that his name is mentioned. Let's look at her article: Gavin Schmidt.
Yeah, that's the idiot.