In 2006-2007, the heyday of CO2 hysteria, we noted that a large problem that we could control without wrecking the global economy (not that it mattered, the global economy was kind enough to wreck itself) was methane production. 

Methane has 23X the impact on warming as CO2 and is caused by plants and animals - as impractical as shutting down all commerce sounded to sane people not in the anti-science environmental movement, cutting down the Amazon to remove dead plants causing methane was equally silly.   

The National Science Foundation is under some mainstream criticism due to budget and waste concerns highlighted by Senate watchdog Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma (see Shrimp On A Treadmill - The NSF Under Fire).

It's easy for the public and members of Congress to show faux outrage unless it is one of their pet projects but, in Coburn's defense, he goes after everyone, not just science; transportation spending waste, military spending waste, you name it and he has gone after it.    He is exactly the sort of financial 'watchdog' everyone says they want - unless he is watching their group.   

During the ClimateGate scandal, researchers at East Anglia were not found to be manipulating data but were stonewalling Freedom of Information requests, the bedrock of a democratic science society since the work is financed by taxpayers.

A cold turkey approach to energy is a ridiculous idea endorsed only by the truly militant but it is clear we have to migrate from high-pollution solution fossil fuels while science advances on energy generation that is clean and cost-effective enough that we don't create energy ghettos where only the rich can be warm or own cars, like we would have with silly windmills or solar panels using current technology.

Chris Mims, writing at the Txchnologist, engages in some funny framing worthy of anyone from his Scienceblogs.com days, but he asks a reasonable question; is natural gas as good as advertised?