Well, this topic has really run away on its own at this point. I can no longer keep track of all the things that have been said. I find Chad Orzel's thread the best, because it really gets into a lot of the baffling reactions, many of which amount to saying, "this oped omits X" -- even though X is to be found in the longer paper, or in the American Academy's lengthy transcripts which I was asked to summarize. So I really feel that the people who are making this argument about omissions, without even mentioning the longer work, are being unfair. An example would be Evil Monkey--here criticizing the Post piece without mentioning the longer paper, and yet nevertheless saying "I've already done more than Mooney. I've made a couple concrete suggestions for how the problem needs to be addressed"; here glossing over that omission by saying the prior post "was directed at the Op-ed, which was pedantic and useless, if not counterproductive." Look: Everybody knows that one has to pare a topic down in order to write shorter articles, especially for mass media outlets rather than specialized ones. I've really seen nothing raised as an alleged omission in my Washington ...