In this article by David Abel, he writes about the difference in understanding of climate change between meteorologists and climate scientists. Though overall I thought this was an interesting and relatively unbiased article, I do not think it was as effective as it could have been. He opens the article with “They” and he does not specify who the “they” is until the next paragraph. As a lede, this offers some dramatic effect, but it also starts off with uncertainty–something an article about science ideally would not do. I think that the nut graph is good in this article, because it shows the strong difference between forecasters and climate scientists, yet I think it gets a little redundant. Plus, it offers a lot of quotes without them adding much to the story. He does a good job showing how science and politics often intertwine, pressing the importance of unbiased journalism when it comes to giving people scientific facts. However, I feel this article fell flat in the body and the kicker. It contains numerous quotes without much description surrounding them. then, in the close he simply ends with the difference between climate scientists and meteorologists–a quote that would fit better near the start of the article, I think.
What do you think the main takeaways from this article were meant to be? In what ways was the author successful in sending his message? Do you feel that this was an unbiased article, or did you feel opinion coming from it?