I know, prophex: sometimes data, even (or especially) subtly biased data, is stultifyingly dull stuff, and the passion must be found in the reader's concern about the data's consequences. Someone pulling a fast one with the facts often tries their sleight of hand while your eyes are glazing over...
It is laborious to work through all that to put your finger on a focal point of misrepresentation, but it's awfully important. That's what I tried to do by referencing Figure 1 in the PDF.
Even if you don't read the entire article, take a look at that figure in light of my remarks and RAZD's: the authors shaved and shaped that graph to suit their policy ends, not the data.
In my message to you above, I wanted to give you a friendly poke in the ribs: joining a discussion with a remark like "BORING" doesn't contribute much.
™ Version 4.2
