>>That's not the only thing wrong in the article. More tomorrow

I clicked a few of the citations and saw the usual extrapolation of "estimation" and "could happens" as proven scientific facts that justify attack. This tactic is happening a lot but seems to escape censure because the whole media landscape is so treacherous now.

Something both US left and right need to watch out for imho: the belief that theirs is the only enlightened viewpoint so everybody else is /insert hateful epithet here/. This tactic may be intellectually easy and sidesteps scientific method (meaning continuously challenging your own theories) but it's also morally corrupt and contributing to the ugliness that the US seems determined to portray internationally these days. FWIW, years of partisan overstated rhetoric is now quoted back at the US by Communist China every time the US tries to refer to human rights atrocities in China. "The US is the biggest warmonger and human rights delinquent on the planet- you said so yourself, here's a page of your own quotes so how dare you try to lecture decent world citizens like China" is the new response and there's volumes of ammunition. Perhaps gun control would prevent politicians shooting themselves and their nation in the foot quite so readily (ducks for cover)