It's interesting how this author is essentially guilty of the very thing she accuses others of. She has simply taken for granted the totality of the Official Po

It's interesting how this author is essentially guilty of the very thing she accuses others of. She has simply taken for granted the totality of the Official Position as true almost as a matter of principle, and even though there is divergence of legitimate opinion on the subject. "First, researchers must learn to identify authors of research, and their relationships with industry and with non-profit groups that have specialized agendas." Conflicts of interest can be useful to know, but this borders on ad hominem. The whole point here is to engage with the argument being made. As I wrote elsewhere, doubt must have a rational basis. If someone is sowing irrational doubt, then you can counter it by showing why it's irrational and unjustified. You can't stop others from spreading manufactured FUD, but you can respond to the FUD by showing that it is FUD. "Second, scientists should consider what kinds of argument the data and conclusions serve." So begin with an official narrative and official political ends and advise scientists to refrain from publishing anything that goes against that narrative or those ends? No, thanks. Also, the author does not seem concerned about the pervasive low trust in our political institutions today and how enacting certain polities feeds into that distrust, even though that concern falls entirely within the bounds of things that she seems to think are worthy of consideration.