As I've asserted many times,
views on global warming seem like water sloshing in a shallow pan — a lot of movement, no depth (and thus no determination to act).
Not exact matches
«Why does the urban influence
on our
global analysis
seem to be so small, in
view of the large urban
warming that we find at certain locations (section 5)?
Your reasoning
seems to be that, because a consensus * can * be wrong, the consensus
on global warming * must * be wrong and the minority
view must be correct.
Dismissing natural variability even though it is well demonstrated by now that the consensus
view on so - called «
global warming» has failed
seems to invert the scientific process of (in rough form): Observe > hypothesis > test / predict > measure result > Compare to observation > reconcile to reality.
It
seems that instead of there being a 97 % scientific consensus amongst climate scientists
on man - made
global warming, there are actually a lot of different
views.
The public
views the meteorological community in a monolithic way and
seems prepared to accept the opinions of TV weather forecasters
on issues such as
global warming, in spite of the fact that this community has most often no expertise
on this topic.
Somehow picking
on one issue, ease of access for shipping and energy exploration,
seems an awfully narrow and unsophisticated
view of who will win and who will lose from
global warming.
In spite of his position at NCAR he did not
seem to have a pre-determined point of
view on the issues at hand, and in fact told me that much of his work at NCAR is related to issues outside of
global warming.