I find it really hard to place much credence in an article peppered with coulds, mights, possiblys, etc. Almost sounds like a global warming article with lots of speculation and little on facts.
All 'unknowns' are approached that way.
When we scientists do research, we're entering unknown territory. We don't have any answer books to tell us if we're correct or not. No matter how positive we are that our experimental results are correct, someone else can always come along and show how we are wrong. So we are trained to write in such a way as to express the uncertainty implicit in our work. (Yes, I am a scientist.)
The time to be suspicious is if you see someone claiming to be a scientist who does not use what I call "hedge words" and, instead, says everything as if it is established, undisputable fact. They are most likely a quack trying to sell you a bill of goods. That is especially applicable in the "global warming" debate--most of those pushing it don't use hedge words.
Guess these guys thought that worked well so they are trying it!