> What frustrates me is the apparent lack of reasonably technical secondary resources that are both relatively objective (ie not sensational, don't omit importa

> What frustrates me is the apparent lack of reasonably technical secondary resources that are both relatively objective (ie not sensational, don't omit important details) and up to date. This is a really good point. As you say, it seems the only two places to get information about climate related research are at the extreme ends of a spectrum, one heavily rigorous but prohibitively technical, and the other extremely flippant but very accessible. > When I've previously taken the time to dig in I found it difficult to figure out what the various prevailing hypotheses were other than "things will change somehow" and also quite difficult to gauge the confidence of various longer term projections that I came across. I think this is a symptom of the way we conduct the scientific process in the modern era. It takes a lot of time to do good research, and it takes a mass of research to develop a consensus, especially when it comes to predictive analysis.