Maybe you've missed the numerous occasions where I post a detailed response or paper from experts, one or two of which have also been Nobel laureates, and the posts are dismissed because they come from a think tank on the "wrong" side of the tracks.

Read the paper. See for yourself how many assumptions there are, the primary one being that those who agree with the UCS worldview must, by definition, be telling the truth from an unbiased, non-political point of view, while those who disagree must, by definition, be slanting the truth, lying, and/or working from political motivations. For example, it is automatically assumed that any study funded by industry must be suspect. Period.

If you have followed the UCS for a number of years, you would know they carry enough political baggage to bring a herd of Mumakil to their knees, but that is never acknowledged or taken into account, and I would imagine most of the participants honestly don't even see it themselves.

Does the issue in this paper need to be addressed? Is there a balance that needs to be drawn between those who believe that all capitalist technology is evil, and those who believe that industry can do no wrong? I won't argue with that--as long as one can admit that there are two sides to the scale.

But this particular paper is just an election-year hit. Some blogger credited the great patience with Bush on the part of the UCS as the reason it took them this long to come up with something like this. There is a more plausible reason.