You're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not investigation by the reporter.
Questions:
1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions?
2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter?
3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?
Questions:
1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions?
2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter?
3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?