Probably not but I think GPs point is that if the rhetoric of the article was different and better data included then stuff like this would be harder to tear up and dismiss. This happens on both sides on all issues.
I think most of the people making this criticism are misunderstanding both the intended audience for the article and the point the writer was trying to make. The article was focused on problems Miami will likely be facing in the next 40 years due to rising sea levels and their pattern of development over the past 50 years.
It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"
It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"