[jirdperson]

I just found my mostly typed-out comment from yesterday in a forgotten tab and figured that I might as well finish and submit it, but it looks like you already made a lot of the same points.

I'm left wondering if the 'article'/excerpt is just not that compelling or if I'm simply not in its target audience. In the latter scenario, what might characterize those who would find it convincing?

[Delk]

It's hard for me to tell exactly what makes me feel about it the way I do.

Maybe the message is actually benign but the amount of denialist crap that I've seen in the past makes me react to it strongly as something similar and untrustworthy. Maybe it's that many of the the arguments it presents aren't, at least when picked apart analytically one by one, that good [0]. Maybe it's that parts of it feel more like rhetoric than actual arguments, and rhetoric always makes me a little uneasy.

Your other comment treats the excerpt somewhat more generously than my perhaps cynical gut reaction was, probably for the better.

[0] in the form they are presented in the excerpt; it's a good point that it's not originally a full standalone article

[jirdperson]

I was trying to be as even-handed as possible, but I'm not sure the cynical reaction isn't the right one. The reliance on rhetoric, as you point out, seems unnecessary for a topic that should be dealt with through relatively uncontroversial facts and figures. Whatever the case, the 'article' left a weird taste in my mouth.