Walter Russell Mead has been giving us a lot to think about lately — especially on global warming scandals. My hat is off to him for some thoughtful writing — especially given that he claims he personally accepts anthropogenic global warming as fact. He is however disappointed by sloppy science and sloppy reporting on the issue. Aren’t we all.

In the spirit of Mead’s “let’s be reasonable approach,” allow me to offer a few observations.

I am admittedly a climate skeptic. Like Mead I think skepticism is healthy — especially in someone who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist. I think skepticism is a survival instinct honed over many generations of human existence. Gullible types tend not to survive in the long run.

Here are a series of really basic questions I think any healthy skeptic ought to have about climate change — questions that our so-called journalist protectors should have insisted on being settled long ago, instead of playing cheerleaders for climate alarmism.