You can lead a horse to English, but you can't make it parse.
> Pretty unequivocal in what it is saying. Add a blue LED to a Red one and a Green one and you can get a white "bulb".
Really can't be arsed giving a point-by-point breakdown of the piece, but you maybe need to learn the difference between "and" and "therefore", and note that Tim was explicitly writing about both bulbs and screens.
> Half your selective quotes don't refer to the LED work, but instead to other uses of GaN - not part of the Prize award. What was your point?
So what's your point now? You claimed that the whole article was completely dismissive of the scientists' work -- because it cast doubt on points made which you also insist are nothing to do with their work. I point out that the article is full of praise for the work. Even if half the quotes are irrelevant (because they relate to some of the work's broader applications rather than just LED bulbs), so what? They're still praise. I can't see even a smidgen of this derisory contempt for the Nobel-winners' work that you claim saturates the article. You're reacting to something that isn't there.