Thanks for the reference birdman29 . I did read the reference...

Thanks for the reference birdman29 . I did read the reference and concluded that it's more lies from a hysterical delusionist propagandist.

The original Nature article is well worth checking out. It looks open access too, I'm pleased to say...

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html

Describing Nature as "unscientific" is perhaps to be expected from this Booker character. He has espoused similarly loony views on smoking, asbestos and evolution. I give him zero credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Booker read History at uni and perhaps this explains his scientific ignorance.

What about you birdman29?

What credentials do you bring to this forum?