Accurate summary of the committee hearing, but it gives little background on the issue at-large and doesn't include any voices from supporters/opponents who did not attend the hearing. There's no context here to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of the state's renewable energy policy and its progress fulfilling clean energy goals. This story might provide decent supplemental information for readers keeping up with the 2011 session, but it won't be of much use to those with a casual interest in state politics.

This story includes a lot of sources with varied observations. Five sources are used in this article: company execs, manufacturing analysts/observers. Two different points of view are presented with plenty of data and a good mix of varying opinions on the outlook of domestic manufacturing. The only problem is that the writing gets a little bogged down in figures that slow the flow of the story.

This story gets a 50% rating in fairness, in my opinion. Of the four sources used in the article, two are professors and two are researchers; Mark Kleiman, UCLA; Dr. David Epstein, National Institute on Drug Abuse; Dr. Kenzie L. Preston, National Institute on Drug Abuse and Rajita Sinha, Yale University. The story uses sources directly related to the experiment, it's based on researchers' data-mining method and the sources are the researchers. The author didn't source any law-enforcement professionals to see if they think the data or research will be practical or useful, which is problematic for the story's fairness.

I appreciate Gleick's passion for this article, but I think he got a little too personal making this seem like a blog post instead of a news article. I like how he broke down inaccuracies about climate change and explained why they're wrong. That helps someone like me who is not as well-versed in climate vernacular. I also think charts always help scientific articles. I think the constant first-person point of view demeaned his authority.