Thanks for the additional info. I read the abstract of that paper and I reflect that the fact that it takes two Cornell University physics experts to say that "relating [the two] is hard" means (to me at least) that the science in this respect is not fully settled. Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
And then I want to point to the tag of my blog: it says "#politics", not "#science" :-)
Note that I didn't want to offend you. My clarifications do not remove anything from the main meat of your blog, which I appreciated a lot. I apologise for this.
There are very few studies there. But they are indeed needed and this is a field where a lot has still to be done, as you said!
Cheers ^^
No worries, you didn't offend me at all!