There is not many article on cholesterol in comparison, believe it or not biology is far far more complicated than climate science, because of the many additional factor both camp "cholesterol is bad for you" and c"cholesterol is good for you" can be bot right, due to the way the homeostasis in our body work and what happen when it does not, body requirement, confounding factors etc.... This is why you see often study contradicting each other in biology "coffee is good / bad for you". This is not about settled science , this is about having far far many factors coming in. In climate science on the other hand , the system are huge, but the number of factors or confounding factors is relatively small compared to a human. Think about it : you cannot simulate properly a human by slicing him in single voxel of meat and simulating the interaction between each other. You can do that with atmosphere to predict short term and evolution, and you can do that on a different level to predict long term evolution.