Reed And Ink

Continuing along, The Wall Street Journal provides reputable cover —

Give us time to consider, to test alternative hypotheses, to falsify theories—to do our work without worrying if the results support your causes. Science is a valuable and unique societal institution, but not if it is consumed by short-sighted political goals.

Agreed, but once the match is seized, the fire will be lit — “the core of the knowledge about man-made climate change is simple and hard to contest” — and as this core is not explained for the rest of us, we must still question any appeal to faith — in other words, science must not be seen to be tainted by the dirty politics it supports, if I may put it so cynically.
Is it carbon dioxide, or MDOs? Some permutation of both? I did enjoy this quote:

I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.

The point of all this is not to show that there is a hung jury, but that any trial itself is premature. Dissent is healthy, though we must still question its motivators, whether they are in it for the truth, or for the spin, as I suspect Sunstein is.

Anyway, time for chocolate almond brownies. Fishy can wait.