#404 directly contradicts you. But let us even assume that isn't true, what do you think happens here? You think he ordered this thing last week on his own initiative? Last month? A year ago? It's fairly clear that they took the report and reworked it so that they could at least have something they could explain.
Oh, and #2 is saying "allow science that contradicts the garbage that's in this report."
I'll repeat myself, just this once...
I *quoted from the report itself*. The thing that is causing all this uproar. My beliefs stem from what it said in its *first paragraph*, which, as I said, I quoted straight from the report.
So, #404 does not contradict me, it contradicts the report itself. If the author of that post wants to argue with those who wrote the report, then that's fine with me. I don't care.
For myself, I choose to doubt that a report would lie about something so basic in the first paragraph of an introduction which is all that most people will read of it (it is a long report).
Why don't you just go and read the Introduction, then you can cut and paste from it and tell us all how it is lying.
Tuor