So I've laid this point out before but people refuse to digest it.
My background... I work in high level IT but have a BS in Meteorology. I don't deny climate change, but question the reactions to the theory of MMGW.
As pointed out the numbers show warming, but the models are unable to make verifiable predictions.
As a someone with a scientific background I struggle with then making policy on data that can't verify.
As this article shows when you start to make these policies it then becomes more important to defend them and the position than to accept new information and facts that might point out those policies as wanting. This in turn keeps us from moving to the proper policies.
I'll use an old example. There had been talk about states and cities not getting funding without climate change plans. At that time the logic had just come out of "never seeing snow in the northeast by 2015". Had that mandate for plans or no funding been in place when it was thought that snow was a thing if the past in boston,it's likey Bostons plan would have been to fund sea walls to combat sea level rise, and not fund for new plows, sanders, road salt etc. Turns out 2015 was a record snowfall year. Boston would have been screwed.
We have to push the study of the issue. Nothing supressed, and no agendas that become to political to protect. At the end of the day to me as a scientist the data suggests the we are indeed in a warming cycle, man plays a part, and that the ultimate impacts will be much different than we think they'll be.