Everyone's opinions are different and we all read for different reasons, but just because an article isn't a strictly factual, question->answer piece doesn't mean it's poorly written. As the article makes clear the answer is still unknown, therefore the purpose of the piece is to both show how science is done, even when it doesn't go as planned, and to get the reader thinking about something they may have never considered before about an animal many of us spend a lot of time with.
The article has a title, and the contents don't match the title until nearly half way through the piece, and also don't really continue to match it past there. The length of the introduction is appropriate for a short book, not a 2000 word essay. As the article makes clear, the answer is still unknown, and so the article as titled should not have been written. Changing the title alone could make this a better written piece, but as is it doesn't match the expectations given to the reader.
As the article says, this is a much bigger problem than just Miami.
> Globally, it’s estimated that a hundred million people live within three feet of mean high tide and another hundred million or so live within six feet of it. Hundreds of millions more live in areas likely to be affected by increasingly destructive storm surges.
> Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however...
Climate scientists do and have studied the link between climate and the sun, as well as many other factors, but in the end GHG emissions from humans are contributing the most to increasing global temperatures.
I haven't tried this but you might get something out of creating a reddit multi (maybe r/worldnews, r/news, r/science, r/foodforthought, and whatever else), check it once a week and sort by top and "this month" or "this week". The top ten links are probably impactful, engaging, and relevant.
The lazy in me would actually like this in a weekly email.
Yeah, +1 for SUIT CSS. Modularity is clutch, particularly on larger projects that get tossed around a lot. I'm not completely sold on OOCSS, but MapBox's style guide is making a believer out of me (https://www.mapbox.com/base/). Minus the unsemantic grid, of course...
One critique of your site design, I don't know if it's just me, but infinite scrolling can be frustrating. I was trying to get to the "About" section in the footer but it kept running away from me.
I don't know how many tech related job listings they have, but you could look at http://www.idealist.org/.
This is their mission statement:
"Idealist connects people, organizations, and resources to help build a world where all people can live free and dignified lives.
Idealist is independent of any government, political ideology, or religious creed. Our work is guided by the common desire of our members and supporters to find practical solutions to social and environmental problems, in a spirit of generosity and mutual respect."
This article sounds like it's talking about a form of cooperative, without calling it a cooperative, which isn't a new idea, but certainly is one that is starting to become more mainstream. For example, the UN named 2012 the "Year of the Cooperative." I'd like to believe that people are starting to see cooperatives as a way of organizing businesses outside of only coffee shops and grocery stores.
