“This public scrutiny has, I think, helped us to up our game in all these areas and be better about being transparent.”
What a biased article. There are significant uncertainties about how much warming is occurring, how much is caused by human activity, whether the effects are positive or negative, and what an “optimal” climate might be.
Computer models cannot answer these questions.
The assumptions about motivations for the call for transparency in the EPA science is staggering. Apparently the writer is a mind reader.