I think the "empirical evidence", the "anecdotal evidence" and the "historical evidence" clearly points to the fact that "yes" the climate does change. The disagreement is the cause. Does the fact that people in the not so distance past were farming in Greenland or fact that deserts in Africa and South America once teemed with plants and animals have anything to do with what we are seeing today? You tell me. Our perspective is restricted by the miniscule amount of time we individully exist on this earth.

Steward, I commend you for trying to be the best steward that you can be, and I will not be making a personal attack on you. There has been too much of that in this debate already.
There are some holes in your argument. Right off the bat you claim that there is disagreement about the existence of any climate change, let alone changes caused by humans. Later, however, you bring up ice ages and other natural changes. Working both sides of an argument is a good way to not make a point.

I am a geologist, I and my other scientist brethren, can assure you that climate change is real, and we do understand the tree rings and ice cores that you do not. Your assertion that our data comes from those cores and written logs and only spans a couple of hundred years is very, very wrong. The rock record contains millions of years of climate data. This data is not laid out like a log, or as easy to get out, but it may be a better record. It is very hard for dead plants and animals to present a biased opinion. The same goes for chemical analysis and certain geologic principles. In this way we have proven with out a doubt that the climate does change.

You have concerns about the sudden argument change from global warming to climate change. There was no argument change, only a name change because global warming is a misnomer. The changes that are occurring make many changes not just warmer temps (why I cannot remember). Call it what ever you want, it won't change anything.

I will say that it is a natural change (rock record), but we may be having a serious impact and if we aren't maybe we can-for the better.

Ask someone much older than yourself, they will tell you that the world has changed, that was stated in the article. reduce snowmelt, ponds dried up, so on and so forth.

Lastly, you have said that you won't sacrifice human well-being to help the world. Excuse me, and forgive me, but that is an ignorant comment. If the world changes to such a degree that we loose what we love, then who's well being is being protected. You have stated that this is a political issue, and you're right it is, but we all need to get the politicians out of it. You wouldn't take a car to a doctor so why would you take something like this to a liar in a suit?

Great story about Bill Geer, a real conservation hero and a hunter/angler dedicated to making the West a better place for fish and wildlife.

Readers of this blog can learn more about Geer's amazing sportsman's mapping project at this article in Montana's state conservation magazine: http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2008/TRCPmapping.htm

The magazine also has an article detailing the effects of warming on the state's fish and wildlife. The article doesn't assign blame for the warming but simply says: This is what's happening and this has been the response of the state's fish and wildlife conservation agency:
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2009/climatechange.htm

Kudos to Bill Geer for having the courage, and the conviction, to undertake this hugely important effort. It's not about politics, and if there's any agenda here it's nothing more, and nothing less, than the fate of the planet.

It boggles my mind that hunters and fishermen led the fight to enact tough anti-pollution legislation and clean up our air and water...and yet 40 years later we seem to be at the forefront of climate change denial, with many in our ranks applying the most tortured kind of logic in their attempts to discredit science and blithely explain away phenomena that should be galvanizing us to action--the melting of the polar icecaps, for example. It makes about as much sense to deny that the climate is getting warmer--or to argue about the ultimate effect this might have--as it does to deny a diagnosis of metastatic cancer when every test is positive, or to argue that it won't kill you.

A large part of why we as Americans have a difficult time with antrhopogenic climate change is based on a long and systemic aversion to science.

Hunting and hunters used to the science based conservators of our lands, it's the bedrock of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The fact that we even need to discuss it is disheartening.

I attribute the difficulty to the framing of the issue in a political context by the industries who have a vested interest in avoiding limits on CO2.

Steward,
Very well stated argument.
In the 70's it was global cooling, the coming "ice age", then when that didn't work it became "global warming", then when that didn't work it became "climate change".
It's called weather. The earth's magnetic poles are moving, I'm told now.
Do we have any effect on this?
Can we pollute our immediate areas, yes. Can we effect globally, no.
Keep their hands out of our pockets.
Can't wait to see all the 4-wheel drive Chevy Volts in a future hunting season.

JuanTwan:
Thank you, yes, for your point about climate change. There was no intention of working both side of the argument. I do not question wether Climate Change can or does happen, I believe world-wide climate has changed significantly over the millenia. However, the type of Climate Change that is being promoted now, I don't accept. Just a year or two ago someone stated that kids in England would never ago see snow. There is a paranoia about climate change right now that is based more on "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012" than any true science.

Arguments against climate change usually go like this - "It's winter, it's damn cold, and Gore is an idiot"

Basically, all arguments against climate change and our part in it are based on misunderstanding the way it all works, if not complete ignorance of how things work. Same goes for evolution and flat earthers (still around). They don't understand it, therefore it can't be true to them.

Many admit that the climate is changing, but won't accept that we have any effect. This is based on...nothing. Show me some evidence that we can't effect the global climate. You and the people that tell you what to think on TV and radio believing that doesn't count as evidence.

How can anyone believe that taking away a huge portion of plant biomass and introducing massive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere could not have an effect?

Are glaciers that are suddenly disappearing a figment of our imaginations? Part of a vast liberal/socialist/new world order conspiracy?

2010 tied 2005 for the hottest year on record. Stick that in your nay-saying pipe and smoke it.

Much cogent and enjoyable commentary here,...and some not so good. I have lived a long life,(77 yrs.)spent mostly outdoors observing nature,and can only add my personal observations. Among many other things, in my area of the east I have witnessed the dramatic and continuing movement of plants, birds and animals north. This, to me is absolute proof of warming climate. I believe that this has, and is, happening all over the planet and has been going on for a very long time. Does anyone actually believe that the presence of around 7 BILLION (an unimaginable figure) human beings on the earth, all producing co2 through their activities, would not have huge effects upon our atmosphere and climate? Get real. Do many Americans lack respect for science? They surely do! Many, if not most, of my friends are hunters and fishermen, and I regret to say that many of them seem to have little respect for science, or any other endeavor that seems to smack of intellectuality, and view scientists and thinkers as "eggheads" and out of touch with the real world. I'll bet that all of you have noticed this ever since you were in grade school. Many of these friends do not believe there is any such thing as acid rain! It is impossible to argue with them. They refuse to be confused by he facts. Few of them seem to read very much.Scientific research by it's very nature, never says that any conclusions are final and always leaves the door open to new conclusions through ongoing research. That is exactly what science is for, is it not? In addition, it seems to me that many, if not most, of our citizenry who are still in denial are people who it is impossible for me to have any respect for. I speak of many of our sorry politicians of course, the most untrustworthy of our population by far. I will always come down of the side of science and common sense, and refuse to listen to politically and ideologically driven opinion, which much of this controversy seems to be about. Anyway, I believe that all the evidence at the moment is on the side of the VAST majority of scientists who believe in human-induced climate change. Many climate change deniers seem to believe that the scientific community are engaged in some evil and shadowy conspiracy to bring down and destroy our capitalist and financial systems. Why on earth would they want to do that, since it is that system that they all depend upon? What total BS! Thanks to you all for some very good posts.

Actually, I'm living in Arizona. The demonstration projects to hand already show that the US SW with a small fraction of space could generate 100% of the daytime electrical usage of the US, including projected future growth in household consumption and assuming a 100% conversion to electric vehicles.

Night time is a different thing entirely, but that is why the nuclear fuel recycling program is important. The re-enrichment process eliminates the problem of long term storage of nuclear waste, because the stuff that makes nuclear waste problematic, which is degraded uranium, doesn't wind up in the waste. Instead it gets separated out and reused. The process is already successfully used in France and Japan quite extensively.

Anyone who thinks CO2 forcing is not causing global warming does not know any of the climate science or data.

Interestingly, there was a relevant article in Sunday March 6 Wash Post about the fact that Arctic plankton, like everything else in the Arctic circle, is adjusting to shorter, warmer winters.

The scientists involved in studying climate change and anthropogenic forcing are not employees of or paid consultants for investors in carbon credits. Some scientists weighing in on the "skeptics" behalf are, however, paid consultants to the Petroleum Institute and the Society for Petroleum Engineers... both of which foster a "consume more" approach to fossil fuel use as a matter of self-interest -- to wit -- profit.

Finally, the comment about internationalists seeking to revoke sportsmens' rights in the US is a flat out nonsequitur. It has nothing to do with the climate science nor with the motives of climate scientists. Many of the climate scientists in the US are themselves hunters and fishermen. The one thing you can rely on from them is a dedication to excellence in empirical research findings. There is no doubt that the overwhelming evidence, middle range theory, and general theory indicate that global warming is happening at a time when the globe should be cooling a bit, and that CO2 forcing from human fossil fuel consumption -- to wit 27 Billion metric tons of CO2 each year and growing -- (more CO2 each year than all of the volcanoes in the last thousand years, and all of the forest fires in documented history going back about 200 years, COMBINED).

Anyone who is trying to cast the climate science on this as a conspiracy encompassing THOUSANDS of researchers in paleoecology, palynology, oceanography, geography, dendrochronology, geology and planetary geology, is certifiably NUTS. That would be the best maintained conspiracy in the history of the universe and such a conspiracy theory makes the UFO chasers, Bigfoot believers, and Tarot card readers of this world seem RATIONAL by comparison.

I am not proved wrong. You are inventing words and attributing to me when I have not said them. I find the tactic annoying, and also inconsistent with your claim to have genius IQ. I also have low tolerance for liars, and you are starting to approach your quota.

Yes, the reprocessing and disposal cycle reduces material to 1/5 the volume and remains dangerously radioactive for about 500 years. I take that as a huge improvement over the extant uranium cycle process. Yes, I only provided one link. If you desire more, PAY ME. Or get a degree so that you will know what you're talking about.

As to engineering. Actually, I knew that, but when dealing with jerks, I enjoy blurring the lines a little. Got under your skin, didn't it? Pushback annoys you? Good!

You represent yourself. How nice for you. That your background which you note includes work for coal and power industries demonstrates that you have an economic interest in a certain outcome. One that pushes consumption of an unsustainable energy source that ALSO has toxicity problems on the scale of hundreds of years. For a fellow who claims to know alot about the subject of energy, your ignorance of the contents of coal ash is, well, interesting. I wouldn't hire you for any form of engineering. I pity the fool that does.

As to interests that I represent, they are my own. Primarily, I am interested in the use of sustainable energy sources that are domestically sourced, and that don't involve large-scale impacts to the landscape, nor involve altering our global thermodynamic system, nor killing a couple hundred thousand US Citizens per year from particulate induced respiratory illnesses, nor of poisoning our fish stocks with mercury, or uranium in coal ash. (Yes, coal ash has uranium, the long-half life isotopes, not the short half life products of the nuclear fuel process).

By your arguments you demonstrate yourself to be an average, short-sighted, mendacious person whose primary interest is in screwing your neighbors for money. There are words for people who screw others for money. You fit them well.

Over n out.

Todd Tanner:
I get what you're saying about NASA's numbers, but NASA was not around 80 years ago. Almost constantly, in my part of the world, if you look at the records for the highest temperatures, they were set in the 1930's.

the greenhouse effect is a natural cycle. energy comes from the sun to the earth at a specific wavelength. it is then deflected back off the earth at another wavelength. this causes the earth's average temp to be about 21 degrees. obviously our average temp is about 60. it is this because greenhouse gases are able to "trap" the wavelengths that are deflected back off the earth. thus the greenhouse effect saves us from extremely cold conditions. obviously though the more greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, the more energy will be trapped on earth, and the higher the temp will be. c02 is most targeted because it is most common and many compounds break down into co2. its complicated science and any solutions would also be extremely complicated

one thing that must be taken into consideration is it is called GLOBAL climate change for a reason. too many people get caught up in there local weather...

Hi folks. Looks like the comments, which have been down since Friday morning, are back up and running. Feel free to jump back in and share your thoughts & opinions.

My thanks to Hal Herring for stopping by and offering his thoughts - if you haven’t read his comment yet, you should; it’s a dandy - and to Pig Hunter for showing that it’s possible for folks to disagree on an issue without being, well ... disagreeable. His kind words are much appreciated.

As far as I can tell, Labrador 12 is my last loose end on this thread. He asked me “What kind of data do you need to see before you are willing to admit that the issue is not settled?”

There are two major factors I consider when I look at issues like climate change. First off, what do the experts say? Secondly, does the empirical evidence confirm their opinion or cast doubt on their findings?

Let’s look at the scientists first. I’ve already pointed out a study that shows 97% of active climatologists believe we’re facing human-influenced climate change. I’ve also mentioned that our National Academy of Sciences calls global warming a “settled fact.” And I’ve confirmed that every major scientific organization on the planet, including NASA and NOAA, shares a similar view. The consensus is overwhelming, and the handful of outliers and contrarians who disagree with the consensus have failed to offer a valid alternative hypothesis that explains the data we’ve accumulated over the course of the last century, or that disputes the basic physics of climate change.

At the same time, all the empirical evidence I see outside my window points to the fact that the scientists are right. Not some of it. All of it.

So to answer the question at hand, I will admit that I’m wrong and that climate science is not settled as soon as the scientists tell me they’re mistaken, or when the empirical evidence contradicts the science. But so far neither of those things have happened.

Just so we’re clear, increased snowfall in colder regions is something that climate scientists have been predicting for years. It doesn’t cast doubt on their findings; it confirms the accuracy of their climate modeling. It’s an obvious function of increased water vapor in the air. (As the planet warms, the atmosphere can, and does, hold more evaporated moisture. If the temperature is below freezing, that moisture falls as snow.) We currently have about 4% more moisture in the air than we did 20 or 30 years ago.

Now let’s turn to the big picture. 2010 just tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. We just finished the warmest decade in recorded history. Our oceans are 30% more acidic than they were a century ago. Arctic permafrost is melting and methane, a greenhouse gas that’s 25 times more potent than CO2, is flooding the atmosphere and threatening a methane feedback loop. New studies show that we’ve already lost 40% of the phytoplankton in our oceans. Respected climate scientists are warning that we could experience temperature increase of 13-18 degrees F here in the United States --within 50 years. No, I’m not being melodramatic or making things up. I’m just telling it like it is.

I care deeply about our hunting and fishing. I’m passionate about protecting the outdoors and conserving nature’s bounty so our kids and grandkids can enjoy the same experiences we’ve had. As sportsmen - as hunter and fishermen - I believe we share a sacred trust. We’re the keepers of the flame; the guardians of a way of life that stretches back thousands of generations. It’s time to stand up and start telling people the truth - that the things we care about are going to disappear if we don’t change the way we do business. I can’t say it any clearer than that.

Good post as usual, Diehl.

I bet Abdul Oilman appreciates your pride in consumption, Clay. Tow much? Doubt it.

Is climate change real in the summer and a lie in the winter?

And, by the by, I am quite comfortable with the newest generation of reactor designs. It goes without saying that 1st Generation GE reactors that were designed in 1965, such as the ones currently having a problem in Japan, aren't state of the art and therefore not at all relevant when discussing future planning, save as an example of that which is outdated, and no longer used, and why.

I made no errors. You're just backtracking post-haste, and trying to put words in my mouth. Lying communist d-bags like you tend to resort to that sort of thing once someone has confronted you with facts.

I see you're now scurrying away from that whole toxic waste concern that you raised. Suddenly the discussion of waste toxicity and storage no longer seems convenient. Certainly that is because if we treated fly ash like the nuclear waste that it is, we'd have to regulate it. Cost of disposal and storage would make coal-generation of elecricity much much more costly. That'd be inconvenient for people like you, who'd crap in your neighbor's yard for profit.

"For example, who ever thought that volcanoes produce a high percentage of CO2 in the tons of compounds they exhaust?"

It is a common straw man argument among those who defend unlimited consumption of fossil fuels to claim that all the CO2 is coming from some magic other place. Volcanoes is one of the common claims. Forest fires is another. All of the forest fires on earth in any given year DO indeed emit several million tons of CO2. Fossil fuel combustion emits on the order of 27 BILLION tons. So do the math. If CO2 forcing matters, it is probably important that less than 2% of the annual CO2 output can be attributed to "natural causes." The relative contributions of fossil fuel related CO2 vs natural causes can be searched up in any number of places. Here is an article specifically about forest fires:

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html

"Although carbon dioxide from forest fires is a small fraction of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossils fuels, it's still an important issue to study, the researchers of both studies say."

You say:
"so the climate **prostitutes, aka scientists**"

Right. You don't have an agenda though, or anything like that. Suure. {Scorn implied}

"If I find some time, I may have to look that up to confirm, or then again maybe not, since this is not my religion like it is for some..."

Sounds like your religion is a river in Egypt.

More details on fission fuel rod reproccessing. The contents of a "spent" fuel rod are as follows:

a. Used fuel from light water reactors (at normal US burn-up levels) contains approximately:

95.6% uranium, over 98.5% of which is U-238 (the remainder consists of: trace amounts of U-232 and U-233; less than 0.02% U-234; 0.5-1.0% U-235; around 0.5% U-236; and around 0.001% U-237 – which accounts for nearly all of the activity)
2.9% stable fission products
0.9% plutonium
0.3% caesium & strontium (fission products)
0.1% iodine and technetium (fission products)
0.1% other long-lived fission products
0.1% minor actinides (americium, curium, neptunium)

See, the stuff used in fuel is Uranium, and as you can see a spent fuel rod is 95% recoverable and usable uranium. Of the remainder, several of the fission products are used in things like MRIs etc. That'd be your cesium, & techetium. Your other minor actinides also have industrial uses. So the real end product of full on reprocessing is something like 95% recycled if you just want the usable uranium, or 98% recycled, if you go for the other products. It's not quite 100% but it is darned close.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Okay...sorry. When I posted the first one, I got a message saying it was being filtered out, I didn't think it posted. Sorry.

Why do liberals think gas companies are evil because they make money and "scientists" are holy because they live off grants. Honestly, if skeptics forged data they'd probably be in jail.

The real number one problem facing sportsman is a lousy economy and $4 gasoline. If you think the answer is more ethanol and the Chevy Volt- we should have that debate.

"The not to be political" but let me spew my alarmist propaganda is tired.

If I simply offered a refried version of somebody's post I am sorry. Something strange is happening with the comment board at this moment. I see 3 comments but the tab says there are 13 so I could not read them all (if they exist!).

Tod:
What evidence would it take? I don't know. So much that is presented as evidence of Global Warming or Climate Change has come into serious question. Al Gore popularized all of this with his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," but as a result of a suit filed by a British man, where British schools were making it mandatory viewing, they now must provide the accompanying list of falsehoods (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-e...).

How do we trust the pronouncements of scientists, when the scientists have apparently been caught in error and possible fraud? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...)

I, too, have heard it stated that one major volcanic eruption can put as much polution and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere as man's potential. Is that just an urban myth propogated by bloggers? (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15196) I don't know.

Science is supposed to be the practice of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Scientists are supposed to examine data and come up with hypothesis to explain what they have seen. Those hypothesis should be tested, as much as possible, to see if they hold true. Scientific dogma changes of the years and centuries as we are able to observe more and test more. But what happens when scientists become impartial and instead of trying to find the "why" behind the observed "what", they begin looking for a "what" that supports their "why"? I fear that this is the case with the current discuss on "Climate Change".

You mention the trees in your home state. (I hope to visit and hunt in Montana, it has such beautiful land). I, too, would be saddened by such changes, but are we truly looking at every possible reason for what is happening, or are we taking the easy answer?

I think it was the summer of 2009 that had a lot of weird weather in North America. Some places hot and unusually dry, and other places with flooding. All we heard about on the news casts was, "Global Warming! Global Warming". 1998 had similar weather, but it was La Nina. What happened to El Nino and La Nina weather patterns? Have they disappeared? Or have people chosen to blame the big, bad, boogey man instead?

I don't know.

Please...I understand how you feel about your son. I have four, ranging in age from 1 to 6. They can't wait to hunting with me. They sometimes pretend-hunt. I have seen them play where one is running around on hands and knees as a deer, and the second boy shoots. The first on drops and the second one comes to him, picks his head up by the ears, and turns it this way and that, saying, "OH, he's a big one!"

I can't wait to share with my boys my love of all things wilderness. And I want that wilderness to be there!

Do we need to make some lifestyle changes? Yes. Do we need to stop some things like the Pebble Creek Mine? Yes, I think we do. I would even be willing to ride a train the twenty miles to work instead of driving my car, if there were a train, but I am not willing to build that train unless we can afford it. I will not allow the electric company to control my thermostat.

Why do I "kick against the thorns" when it comes to Climate Change? Because there are two many charlatans like Al Gore, and too many fanatics like Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chue who thinks all rooves and roads should be painted white. And worse, those who think we must put global controls on population growth to prevent unnecessary use of resources and unreasonable production of CO2.

Bill's example is sound. Let's research and pull together as much information as we can to find out what is actually happening, but let's do it honestly, scientifically, and without bias. Can we actually do that?

Todd,

Your concern for your son's future and the future of outdoor sports in general is no doubt shared by most everyone who reads Field and Stream. But I feel like there is this attitude out there that if you don't support human caused climate change that you're some how pro-pollution and anti-nature. My question is simply this,"Isn't there enough compelling, factual information out there to justify not polluting the world in which we live without making climate change the end all issue?" I can think of hundreds of reasons why as a sportsman I support clean air, water, forests, etc... without even touching the firebrand topic of climate change. The whole "green" movement has turned into a bunch of disconnected (insert hypocrites) suburbanites preaching CFL light bulbs, wind generators and electric cars while sipping water from plastic bottles and typing on their power consuming lap tops with a plasma TV shining in the background. The sacrifice required to truly be "GREEN" is way to much for your average 1st World citizen to really consider. Getting your hands dirty by growing a garden instead of going to the grocery store. Unplugging the "electronic necessities" of 21st century life. Unthinkable. I guess we better come up with an idea that doesn't hit so close to home...Oh that's right we already have one...GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Testing.

There have been a number of questions raised about global warming science, and about climate scientists, in this comment thread. Steward’s question - “ How do we trust the pronouncements of scientists, when the scientists have apparently been caught in error and possible fraud?” - gets to the heart of it.

So let me clarify a few points and then offer a comparison that might help some folks make sense of this issue. While errors and mistakes are part of the scientific process, the underlying science of climate change is sound and the body of scientific evidence is conclusive. As I pointed out earlier, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on this issue. So does every major scientific body on the planet.

Let’s be clear. Scientists don’t gain fame and professional stature by verifying the status quo. They do so by making important new discoveries, or by disproving accepted scientific theories. So there’s a huge incentive for individual climate scientists to disprove the conventional wisdom. But there are no alternative theories that explain the climate data we’re seeing. As Mike Diehl just pointed out, we’ve ruled out all the other possible explanations.

Which brings me to Steward’s charges of error and possible fraud. By and large, those charges come from organizations and individuals aligned with the fossil fuel industries. There are no scientific groups or organizations out there shouting, “Wait! It isn’t CO2. It’s a previously unidentified form of solar radiation, combined with a minor shift in the earth’s orbit!”

When someone criticizes climate science, it’s almost always because of their politics, their worldview, or the fact that they’ve aligned themselves with the fossil fuel industries. Steward makes that point for me when he cites James Delingpole on climate change. All you have to do is read Delingpole’s bio at the top of the linked story to learn that Delingpole is a political writer, and that he’s not objective.

Here’s an interesting hypothetical situation. Let’s say you’re going on your first ever grizzly bear hunt but you’ve never hunted griz before and you don’t have the gun you’ll need. So you do your research, and you read every major gun writer and hunting expert who’s ever focused on griz - including the gun writers at Field & Stream - and you talk to your outfitter about different rifles, and you eventually decide on a stainless steel .338 Winchester Magnum.

Then, just when you’re about to buy your rifle, your friend Al says, “Trust me. A .338 is way too much gun. You need a .22 for griz. It’s the perfect caliber!” And to bolster his case, he introduces you to his gunsmith, Merle, who confirms that a .22 is indeed the perfect tool for griz.

But you didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, so you ask Merle if he’s ever hunted griz with a .22. What does he say? Merle says, “No, I’ve never hunted griz before. But I do have a sweet little .22 that I’d like to sell you.”

So here’s your choice. You can listen to the folks with the knowledge and the expertise - the ones who have a reputation for being honest and accurate - or you can listen to Merle when he says, “Believe me, those gun writers are in cahoots with the gun manufacturers. You can’t trust them. They get a $1000 kickback every time they write about a .338. You need this .22 for griz!”

We have that same essential dilemma with climate change. We can either believe the experts, or we can listen to people who have a monetary or ideological stake in maintaining the status quo. And just like hunting griz with a .22, making the wrong choice can have very serious consequences.

Cite instead of site. My bad English learned in a unionized public school system. :-)

Todd Tanner, you need a reality check by looking seriously at opposing data. I suggest you look at the following site objectively.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/#Fact

It's easy to proclaim the sky is falling. What realisticly do you expect everyone to do? Do you think China, India, and Russia are going to significantly reduce CO2 emmisions? Are you proposing we in the United States along with the EU should damage ourselves economically by significantly reducing production of CO2? Don’t you think we are already vunerable enough economically? Are you saying you wish to risk political stability and economic power chasing a reduction in CO2?

What makes you think increased CO2 is totally bad anyway. Isn’t our world population growing with each passing second? Increased CO2 promotes the plant growth needed to grow crops. (I will find the studies if you can’t find them yourself). Seems to me the wiser thing to do would be to drastically limit population growth instead of wringing hands over a small increase in global temperature.

You and others like you can’t see the forest for the trees.

I have a bit of anecdotal evidence for you. During a trip in 1996 I had the good fortune to sit down at a campfire on the Canol Rd in Canada's Yukon with a climate scientist from the U of Calgary. He was checking remote climate monitoring devices all over the Yukon and The Northwest Territories. He had three students with him and had been responsible for that duty for almost twenty years. He claimed to have access to all the climate data going back to when the area had been opened up during WWII. I asked him directly what % of climate change was due to human influence? He replied 0%. He claimed that his data showed no statistically valid change over the period and that temps in the 40s were indeed warmer than current temps. He went on to implicate Al Gore in a subversion of climate science and blamed him for attacks on reputable scientists that didn't toe the line on the co2 caused climate change theory that Gore was funding. I believe that the science is far from settled and that politicians should stay out of the issue for the short term. That includes the EPA big time. Montana is flyover country as are most of the places that I love. Don't let politicians raise the price of energy to a level so that only Ted Turner, Thomas Friedman, and Al Gore will be able to live or go there with out a way better amount of evidence than we see today.

Todd, thank you for taking the time to answer my slew of questions. You are a gentleman and I appreciate that fact even if we don’t agree concerning the severity of climate change and assumed human contribution.

In any case, we may still have the same goal. I do believe our national security is at risk because of dependence on fossil fuels for electrical energy production. I am an electrical engineer and have worked in the coal and power production industries. Here’s what I think we should do as a nation concerning this issue:

- Increase research funding for cleaner and more efficient electrical energy production at reasonable costs.
- Maintain a strong military in order to protect our energy interests across the globe
- Increase funding for alternate and more efficient means of transportation
- Promote a culture of energy conservation
- Promote a drastic reduction in global birth rate.
- Tightly control our national borders to limit new consumers coming to this country

I do not think we should demonize CO2 or try to directly control the emissions of CO2. For the next few decades we are stuck with burning coal so why make it more expensive other than trying to make the process cleaner? Also, I do not think we should give up any part of our national sovereignty in the name of trying to control climate change.

I'm not sure which camp I've been tossed into. I asked the Canadian climate scientist how much warming was due to human causes? That implies that I believe that some warming or distortion of the natural system is our fault. My problem is with the dire predictions of imminent doom if we don't cut co2 production by 50% in the next five minutes. I have been stunned to see some of the siting problems Anthony Watts has uncovered. No one in their right mind would think that a thermometer placed on a tree in a 10,000 acre forest in 1755 that has a continuous record to today would be accurate if that thermometer was in the same place geographically, yet was laying on the ground in the middle of a city on blacktop. I'm exaggerating, but you get my point. The record is not clean, the science is not anywhere as good as I would need it to be to kill our economy to "feel good" about our country's energy direction. Energy has to be affordable to be practical. Until energy sources can be found that out compete what we're using today a government mandate is self imposed suicide. Most alternative energy solutions that I am familiar with are ecological disasters to the local area that they are in, windmills, solar arrays etc. There are no magic wands or cost free magic pills to drop into a gas tank that I have seen. I have seen wilderness animals, such as bald eagles and osprey, become common in areas where they had become extinct. Have some hope Hal, it isn't as bad as you may think.

Throughout history the climate has always changed. If your naive enough to worry about this there is no helping you.

By the way, China is not waiting on converting to renewables. They know that as their GDP grows their consumers will need more electricity, and they know that their resources and environment are limited with respect to fossil fuels. It amazes me that the Chinese are so good at keeping their eye on the mid- and long-term economic effects that their captains of industry support the effort to make their economy stronger, while ours, and our political leadership, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Mike Diehl, the ONE link you provided indicates that nuclear waste will theoretically be reduced to 1/5, with that being dangerous for 500 years. You are again proved to be wrong in at least this part of your many ignorant statements.

You obviously don’t know much about engineering either. It’s structural engineers and not electrical engineers that design structures such as those used for fuel rod storage.

I just represent myself on this blog. Who do you represent, Liberal Idiots of the World?

As a Professional Engineer I am ethically obligated to guard public safety in all aspects of my work. "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."

"Another typical tactic is your use of personal insults in an attempt to discredit"

Then, as anyone can see, from the very first sentence of your very first reply to me, you have revealed yourself to be a "liberal."

You are a persistent fool, and you missed a good opportunity to stfu. Now yer deep in a hole that you dug for yourself. Heh!

For more information also see the US DoE Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). They're the ones who provided data to the UN IPCC panel. The CDIAC data I quoted were from 2007, so the idea that they're all a bunch of leftists appointed by Obama doesn't hold water.

The CO2 output data summary page may be reviewed here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html

Hmmm...where to start.
First, I applaud the work done in gathering that information. Fantastic!
Second, my bias. I believe antrhopogenic climate change, as it is popularly understood and discussed, is a crock. At best, bad science, at worst, a hoax. That is my bias.
Third, my passion. I chose the Pseudonym, "Steward," because my beliefs and personal convictions teach me that while we have the right to use the world as we see best, we are also responsible to be good stewards of this world.
What concerns me most about this subject is the idea that "the science speaks for itself," or that "the science is in." In fact, there is great disagreement about whether there is any climate change, let alone anthropogenic climate change. For instance, a few years ago, the voices were taking about Global Warming. The dialogue has now switched to "Climate Change," because it seemed as if every conference on Global Warming was cancelled due to blizzard conditions.
Science is based on data, and the biggest problem is lack of data. In a world that is supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, we have good records on climate going back 100, maybe 150 years. There are some records going back further, but it is sparse. From what I have read, any other data comes from what can be made out from tree rings and ice-core samples. To base huge policy issues on old trees and ice is questionable, to me.
There is also significant "climate change" that cannot be relegated to human activity. Scientists tell us of a past ice age, and indeed, numerous ice ages, where the planet obviously cooled, and then warmed in a cyclical way. Did the cavemen cause that climate change through their fires and hunting?
It is known that the vast Sahara Desert once had areas with rivers running through it and green, fertile land. Do we honestly believe that humans a thousand or thousands of years ago caused that fertile area to become desert simply through over-grazing?

Please understand, I believe we need to care for the world around us. I am a conservationist, and believe we do need to prevent polution of water and land, and be mindful of what we are putting into the air. However, when we are told that carbon-dioxide (which we EXHALE) is a toxic gas that is causing Climate Change, I am forced to skepticism about the entire realm.

One more thought: People hear about climate change, then look at their weather patterns, and say, "nothing has changed, the weather is the same as what my parents and grandparents saw, so what is the problem?" The response I've heard is, "it's about the climate, not weather." No one can explain that to me any more than this other has actually, scientifically, tied climate change to the activities and changes noted by outdoorsman. Climate is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "2a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation." Climate is weather.

If you have read this far, I commend you. I am a Conservationist, not an Environmentalist. I believe we must care for and preserve the world around us. However, I do not worship the world around me and I will not sacrifice the well-being of people in response to a questionable form of politically-tied and motivied science.

Just my opinions.

Steward. Great post.

Todd please explain the following:
1. the midevil warming period
2. the little ice age
3. cultivation of crops like corn on Greenland by the vikings
4. vinyards in England
all before the industrial revolution
5. why climate models ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
6. Mann's hockey stick graph

I take issue with the idea that the "science is settled" and the consensus of the scientific community being based on very limited and suspect data and the fact that all of the grant money is supporting (biasing) the research.

Steward's comments are some of the most sensible I've yet seen regarding the climate change issue.

Two thoughts to add:

Forty years ago we had the pants scared off of us due to the global cooling scare (or the coming of the new ice age). The same science was used then as is being used now; that is, junk science, science fiction, and "political" science (that pseudo science used to advance a particular agenda).

One difference today is that this "global warming" or "climate change" agenda is being driven in a much more sophisticated and forcible manner. Also, people today are "better educated" (more facts?) but lacking in good sense and that ability to make sound, discerning decisions. In other words, "This is what I observe, but what does it REALLY mean or what is REALLY happening here?"

My second thought is somewhat picky, but has to do with the idea that words mean things. The expression "climate change" is similar to the expression "blue in color". It is redundant. Climate is the the conditions that we observe over a period of time and conditions have changed throughout history and will continue to do so with or without people. Our earth is definitely not a "fragile sphere", but that view demands a long term view, not short term.

Thank you Steward for your thoughtful post and comments.

History shows us the climate changes without input from man. Yes we have climate change but it isn't caused by us. Wake up and smell the coffee before the liberals tell you it causes global warming too.

I was exposed to the co2 climate change global warming issue in the late 60s by the writings of Paul Erlich and others. Co2 levels in the last fifty years have increased greatly. In the last century cool decades, then very warm decades, then cooling, then warming at the end of the century are facts in the North American and world climate record. I am extremely interested in the climate influence issue. Tree lines lowered by the end of the seventies and Dr Holdren was a leader in the "return of the Ice Age" movement. The Thirties was a horrendous drought period that was a agricultural disaster that was responsible for the birth of Ducks Unlimited. The Arctic Ocean even seemed to be in retreat, but that was before satellites so is viewed as anecdotal evidence. The warming at the end of the last century is some of the best documented because of our satellite record. Remember though that the satellite record began at a cold period. I have no problem with moving toward greener energy sources, but I don't see the relationship between co2 and temp as straight forward as the alarmists do. I'm not aware of a perfect temp. I'm not aware of a co2 caused end to nature, or to any lessening of this years snow pack in Montana, see Chad Love in Field Notes, or to any long term climate change. From the perceived increasing temp that I see recorded fully half of the supposed increase was "detected" in the first half of the century before the co2 level was "deemed" to be causal. It is very premature to panic and cut off our economy at the knees to reward an unproven, suspect theory which does not yet hold water. There are too many winter killed animals this year, and last year to declare snow extinct as one of the scientists at Hadley did a few years ago.

anhonestclimatedebate. Type that into bing and watch the video. It just shows another reason to believe that the IPCC is lying. Not only lying but taking US taxpayer money to corrupt science. "Hide the Decline" indeed!!

By the way, I never commented one way or another about the composition of coal ash. Your are attempting to misdirect the conversation away from your obvious errors. ;-)

I wish to point out some interesting debate tactics to anyone that has been following this ‘discussion’ between Mike Diehl and me. Mike used variations of the following:

- Ad hominem attacks
- Non sequiturs
- Straw man arguments
- Imputing motives
- False dichotomies

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-harrisburg/liberal-debating-tact...
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-harrisburg/liberal-debating-tact...

Mike outright lied or in a nicer way ‘exaggerated’ some of his figures. In one early post he said:

“CO2 is also the recognized principle agent behind global warming (it is warming, on average, worldwide, even if in some places the local effects are cooler), because humans put 27 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year through fossil fuel combustion alone. For comparison, that is more CO2 each year than all of the volcanoes on earth combined for the last 1000 years.”

Actually, the US Geological Survey says that volcanic activity generates 200 tons of CO2 per year. Simple division shows the correct figure is 134 years instead of 1000 years.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

It's obvious that Solar activity has been excluded by all these Global Warming Scientist for a reason, it will blow there Global Warming Model all to pieces.

One thing for certain, building up towns and cities, the run off form storms has to go somewhere including the Wildlife!

Well, hey...I can't see the last ten posts...nothing past WISC14 talking about the greenhouse effect, so I don't even know if my last big comment posted or what anybody else may have written.

YEP! Ho0w many years of drought and woke-up this year with two feet of snow in my yard. YEP! Every Global Warming get together they have, they get snowed out. Think God is trying to tell them something!

Mike Diehl, I still say you are an Idiot. How do you now feel about nuclear generation of our electrical needs in light of the recent Japenese disaster?

You said the following about electric power generation:

“Night time is a different thing entirely, but that is why the nuclear fuel recycling program is important. The re-enrichment process eliminates the problem of long term storage of nuclear waste, because the stuff that makes nuclear waste problematic, which is degraded uranium, doesn't wind up in the waste. Instead it gets separated out and reused. The process is already successfully used in France and Japan quite extensively.”

Not all of the waste can be recycled economically. The following 2008 GAO summary says only about 1/3 can be used and the rest has to remain in storage.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-606R
"Since 1993, uranium enrichment activities at DOE-owned uranium enrichment plants have been performed by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), formerly a wholly owned government corporation that was privatized in 1998. However, DOE still maintains approximately 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium tails in about 63,000 metal cylinders in storage yards at its Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, enrichment plants. It must safely maintain these cylinders because the tails are dangerous to human health and the environment. Uranium hexafluoride is radioactive and forms extremely corrosive and potentially lethal compounds if it contacts water. DOE also maintains large inventories of natural and enriched uranium that are also surplus to the department's needs. Tails have historically been viewed as a waste product because considerable enrichment processing is required to further extract the remaining useful quantities of uranium-235. In the past, low uranium prices meant that these enrichment services would cost more than the relatively small amount of uranium-235 extracted would be worth. However, an approximately tenfold increase in uranium prices--from approximately $21 per kilogram of uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride in November 2000 to about $200 per kilogram in February 2008--has potentially made it profitable to re-enrich some tails to further extract uranium-235. Even with the current higher uranium prices, however, only DOE's tails with higher concentrations of uranium-235 (at least 0.3 percent) could currently be profitably re-enriched, according to industry officials. About one-third of DOE's tails contain uranium-235 concentrations at that level or higher.

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/dhap/dhap991.html
(These figures are old because this is a 1999 article)
"Most of the depleted uranium produced to date is being stored as UF6 in steel cylinders in the open air in so-called cylinder yards located adjacent to the enrichment plants. The cylinders contain up to 12.7 tonnes of UF6. In the US alone, 560,000 metric tonnes of depleted UF6 have accumulated until 1993; they are currently stored in 46,422 cylinders. Meanwhile, their number has grown by another 8,000 new cylinders. At ambient temperature, UF6 is a crystalline solid, but at a temperature of 56.4°C, it sublimates (becomes a gas). Chemically, UF6 is very reactive: with water (atmospheric humidity!) it forms the extremely corrosive hydrofluoric acid and the highly toxic uranyl fluoride (UO2F2). The hydrofluoric acid causes skin burns, and, after inhalation, damages the lungs. Further health hazards result from the chemical toxicity of the uranium to the kidneys, and from the radiation of the uranium (an alpha emitter). In the storage yards, the cylinders are subject to corrosion. The integrity of the cylinders must therefore be monitored and the painting must be refreshed from time to time. This maintenance work requires moving of the cylinders, causing further hazards from breaching of corroded cylinders, and from handling errors. As a worst-case scenario, the crash of an airplane into a cylinder yard must be assumed. If cylinders are involved in long-lasting fires, large amounts of UF6 can be released within a short time. If the whole contents of a cylinder is released during a fire, lethal air concentrations of toxic substances can occur within distances of 500 to 1,000 meters."

5 post in a row, looks like someone's hurt. Mike, you lost this debate. ;-)

tweak [twiːk]
vb (tr)
1. to twist, jerk, or pinch with a sharp or sudden movement (to tweak someone's nose)