"

 ""History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, under-stating dangers"" .... 

This section's rationale is clearly flawed in that it confuses the word ""conservative"" with the meaning of ""cautious"", which is obviously what a preliminary scientific statement must be (and is accordingly described as such by all sources) with the politically-charged word ""conservative"". Just because a scientist is eventually overcautious and may understate his predictions so that they are not hijacked by scaremongers and susceptible laymen (including journalists), it doesn't mean that he is, politically speaking, a ""conservative"" or just too business-friendly. It means he is doing his job well and responsibly, that is, with caution. These two concepts of being ""conservative"" are conflated here into one single line of criticism, which is obviously absurd and simply reflects the rampant POV of this section - as if relying on commondreams.org as an ""encyclopedic"" source wasn't POV enough... "