This would never be published in a Scientific Journal. It is terribly written and intended to persuade the reader to a conclusion; even before a study is conducted.

First Question, who was surveyed? - Some idiot or a respected aquarist.

Public Aquarist? Is that a scientific credential (BS, MS, Ph.D.?)

Have the survey respondents been peer reviewed for credibility: MAAST and R.C. are a source of peer review for our community.

How much carbon was used and for how long was the carbon used before removal, I could go on but I am only this negative to explain a point. Just because it is written does not make it credible. Carbon is very effective if used correctly. I would postulate that most negative critics of carbon do not even know what carbon is intended to do, or how it actually works.