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.
Computer models have answered many of the questions, but the answers don't fit the narrative.
The most repeatable studies are those that focus on cosmic rays, solar surface activity, and surface cloud cover. When scientists testing these studies report their results, they are panned, and the studies are quickly buried.
Man-made global warming, climate change, pick your trope, is untrue, untestable, not repeatable across any hypotheses, and it is being consistently shown to be an inconsistent indicator of anything related to climate.
Silly they already know the answers, they just have to tweak the model until it agrees with them.