[ratboy666]

Either the journalist writing the article was using Dutton as a source accurately, or Science is not a reputable source of news. This is mutually exclusive.

I took the story prima facie. And, if the story (journalism) is accurate, Dutton is indeed suffering from hubris. Someone brought up the collapse 100,000 year ago in a direct comparison. It was either Dutton or the journalist. If I take Science as an accurate source, it was Dutton. Or it was not Dutton, then Science is not reputable (are they adding implications and misquotes?). If that is the case, why the HN story? HN curated it (that is, HN readers) so I have to give credence to Science magazine (because I give credence "to the crowd of HN contributors"). Again, both sides cannot be argued at the same time.

As to reading the summary for policy makers: the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Why would its publications that are for policy makers be of interest to me? I need a condensed version of science, not policy. The IPCC doesn't have anything to do with the claim -- (except CO2 causes global warming which the IPCC doesn't actually claim, but does imply, as best as I can tell). Either Dutton made the claim, or Science made the claim -- they have to back it up and defend it. I made no claim EXCEPT that Dutton is suffering from hubris. Which I just backed up and defended.