The issue is it simplifies and covers up. The guy is not a scientist or even an interested observer -- he's a liberal editor for a liberal paper.
He thus says things to make a story that is way to simple and uses authoritative words such as fact -- and then puts a nice liberal spin redefinition of fact.
I see this type of advocacy editorial as distortive in its own way as the arguments against evolution. No objectivity, no rigor, no interest in it.
Canard after canard is put forth. it's a world view fight where there can never be anything wrong or descrepant, and that's troublesome.