human
Keep in mind Snarky that the NYT was building its premise on one Masters thesis and its associated research. There had been no time for peer review at the point the Times wrote the article. I don't have the time myself to explore intervening years to see if other scientists have since rejected the methodology and analysis mentioned in the paper.
I remember the hub-bub over non-peer reviewed analysis by a few scientists 40 years ago that was picked up by national magazines and reported as fact.That was in regard to the myth of global cooling, which was quickly debunked when the scientific community weighed in. That was the only time in my career I was rubbing elbows with atmospheric scientists at INSTAAR. They were quite upset at the way non-peer reviewed information was presented to the public so irresponsibly.

As for the NYT? Neither of us can claim to understand why editorial staff does or doesn't bother with various topics. Remember, its ultimately all about selling advertising!
gpt
{"moderation": ["safe"]}