If a scientist weren’t hopelessly biased in favor of the existing religion of global warming, they would look at this rapidly changing situation and think - there must be something causing this region (and JUST this region) to be deteriorating to quickly when on the opposite side of the globe Antarctica is growing faster than anytime seem by man.
And since the predictions for the Arctic region have been badly underestimated for warming, then there may be reasons OTHER than those currently attributed as the source of the change. But I’m sure its infinitely easier just to claim that the proof we predicted would happen in 2100 is happening in 2007 because they were just far, far, far more correct than even they could have predicted.
In any other science, when your predictions end up being off by a factor of 10X you are forced to change your theory. If a patients temperature went up to 105 degrees in 10 minutes instead of 10 hours, the doctor wouldn’t determine that his original diagnosis was right. He would look to find out what was causing the change which wasn’t possible based on his original diagnosis. But hey, medicine is an ‘art’ while climatology is a ‘science’.
Well put.