Your statement is ridiculous. I could say anything and argue it should be judged on it's own merit, where are the sources? There were zero citations in this article.
He wants things handed to him. Rather than follow up via the multiple sources they provided, along with a link to the project itself, he'd prefer we do that work for him.
Which is sad, really. That people don't want to take the time to research things on their own, and simply expect things handed to them.
What source are you looking for exactly? The piece was about the Dark Snow Project, and the journalist trekked around Greenland with the guy that founded it.
I want data, and analysis of data, and the initial conditions required to produce said data. If you don't provide that, you are not providing scientific value. Rather, you're writing an opinion piece that can only ever be as accurate as the author's knowledge, and well, The Rolling Stone doesn't produce scientifically educated authors.
If you want data on public research and don't go looking for it yourself, then you are just lazy. You know the name of the scientist and the project from the article which is all you need if you then want to look deeper. Stop winging.