Lawyers don't know Science
Jay Reding is is retarded:
Global warming studies should be conducted under rigorous scientific conditions using the same double-blind methods commonly used to eliminate bias in drug tests.
...WTF? Double-blind methods are only used in drug studies because drug studies are the only studies where you have to worry about placebo effect, which is the only thing double-blinding eliminates.
In a sense, climate measurement is already double-blind - the Earth is blind, and the thermometers are blind. Double-blinding is appropriate where the focus of study is a population of human individuals, because people in drug studies have to subjectively rate their experiences and the degree to which they're feeling better. And people will claim to be feeling better if they perceive they're expected to feel better.
But the Earth won't warm just because you expect it to. The problem here is that Jay doesn't understand what double-blinding actually means, or how it would be relevant to climatology - and he doesn't care to, of course. He doesn't suggest it in good faith. It's a cypher, a shibboleth, an impossible bar that climatology by definition can never meet, all to prevent Jay from having to deal with the inconvenient reality of anthropogenic climate change.