Jimi,

The clear human signature is described in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for their work on this issue.

Why was it the Peace Prize? Because the consequences of climate change include the potential of massive displacements of people and consequent wars over resources. Coordinated international actions can mitigate those consequences. Inaction makes them much more likely.

I reviewed a good book about the history of such human reactions to smaller changes in climate than the ones we are expecting later in this century: The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 by Brian Fagan.

Those who want to "beef" about the IPCC's conclusions--calling them political rather than scientific--are the same people who are likely to mis-characterize the short-term fluctuations in order to muddle the debate on needed policy changes.

I suggest that you go to the IPCC website and judge for yourself. Don't take my word on the IPCC's mission and credibility. And whenever you hear someone cry "politics" and accuse people of having an "agenda" on this issue, reflect on the agenda of the accuser.

I have no vested interest here other than the world in which my children and grandchildren (twins entering 4th grade and a nursery schooler) will live. I also have a great concern for the giving science the respect it deserves in making policy decisions.

It is that background that leads me to judge that the IPCC reports, which are generally cautious in the way they draw conclusions, demand political action from every developed and emerging power.

I'm not smart enough to say what those actions should be, but they need to be based on the best science we have, not the blind hope that human-caused climate change can be ignored. We need to change our mindset to recognize that business as usual is leading us into deeper trouble.

My original posting on this is non-partisan. Although I have a strong preference in the upcoming presidential election, I think either Obama or McCain will place this issue high on his agenda as president. I am more concerned about politicians and interest groups that will try to derail the next president's new policies. Those groups will be putting their own short-term interests ahead of the long term interests of the nation and the world.

I hope I have given you (and others) the tools to understand what needs to be done, and I hope that you (and others) will take the lead in seeing that we do it.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Mr. Bortz,

I believe that the entire point of the debate is that a human signature is not clear, but clouded. Just as long as everyone is on board with the concept of keeping the horse in front of the cart, than we can continue the scientific debate of Man-Made Global Climate Change. Any debate that jumps to mitigating a problem without a definition of what the problem is, is politics, not science. What I mean by this is, If we haven't determined exactly what humans are doing to cause Irreverseable Global Climate Change, then how can we know what changes we can make that help the situation. It is possible that we could make changes that will in fact make the situation worse, we won't know until we know what the problem is. Even after many, many years of debate, wouldn't you classify our scientific knowledge of Planetary Climate Cycles at the Kindergarden Level. Knowing this, shouldn't one be asking "Where's the Beef."

Jimi

The climate change data show a clear human signature, which means we need to be aware of the problems we may be creating and find a way to mitigate them.

As for the role of and controversy about computer modeling in all this, I recommend Chris Mooney's remarkable book Storm World, which I reviewed for a number of major metropolitan newspapers.

Models always have a role to play in science, but it is important to understand both their limitations and their successes. Mooney does an exceptional job of showing how that plays out in climate science.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Yes, I bet you would love to make sure that the terminology made the distinction between "Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change." The problem is, that doesn't have anything to do with the debate. Shouldn't the distinction be made between "Global Climate Change" and "Man-Made Global Climate Change?"

Jimi

With all do respect, the belief that the science community has the capability to make predictions of the future based on computer modeling, is not only naive but absolutely corrupt. It has become quite well known that the computer modleing predictions are not only elementary, but can easily be manipulated to predict any kind future anyone would like to imagine. Just as long as "Joe Six Pack" is told the truth, than "Joe Six Pack" will fully understand the debate.

Why would "Joe Six Pack" care if the long term trend is warming, with intermediate cooling trends. This is nothing new, there have been many warming trends with intermediate cooling trends in history. The fact that this particular element of the debate must kept alive exposes an idiology not a scientific discovery.

It will be interesting to see if Joe six pack will buy these very divergent messages.

The point is that the messages are not divergent. The long-term trend is warming, but fluctuations will produce short intervals of stability or even cooling.

In other words, the long-term trend of "Climate Change" is "Global Warming." But, as Anonymous notes, we need to be careful with our terminology. Will Joe Six-Pack accept "Long-term global warming with fluctuations"? Or, as New Scientist put it:

Fluctuations in temperature will be just that - ripples on a swelling tide of warming.

My concern is that people will distort that scientific reality to deny the need for long-term action.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

"Even a decade of planetary cooling would not change the long-term prospect of a warmer world."

Very interesting

This is an excellent strategy to fall on both sides of the issue while moving the agenda forward. Not only is warming = warming, but now cooling = warming. Package as climate 'change' and your all set.

A bigger problem arises if global temps do not get cooler or warmer. I suppose climate 'indifference' may be a way to go. I'm sure your statisticians could do some further data massaging and figure out something.

It will be interesting to see if Joe six pack will buy these very divergent messages.

Good luck.

This is why paying attention and acting upon the psychological dimension of the climate change challenge is so important. More important than new technologies is the individual will at all levels.

Also, as individual citizens let us not minimize our impact, both as role models, and also spreaders of information:

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/word-of-mouth-it-can-help-m...

Feel free to browse through the rest of my blog, where you will find hundreds of posts devoted to green psychology, including many lively threads of discussion amongst readers.

I think the key is to refer to all of this not as 'global warming' but as 'global climate change'. That way, naysayers and fence-sitters can't point to 'normal' temperatures and say, 'See, it's not getting warmer!"