What disagreements are there? Can you give more details?

Renewables will be our only choice for the foreseeable future - too many problems with nuclear, and fusion is always decades away. We're already at the stage with fossil fuels that we're trying to exploit the most difficult and expensive forms we can. We're just about in the same position as the nicotine addict who picks through public ashtrays looking for cigarettes that aren't completely smoked.

Water vapor is an important GHG, true - but it's a feedback, not a forcing. It's residence time is short and it readily saturates and rains out, and is present only in the lowermost troposphere. Quite unlike CO2.

It's precisely because we are not outside nature that we have to control ourselves. Nature doesn't give a rip if there's 7+ billion of us or none of us - if we break its rules, we will suffer.

The latest science says that we've forestalled an ice age (not that one was imminent anyway) - and it's not like global warming won't result in crop failures. There's evidence that the hydrological cycle has become more vigorous - more intense rain, for example. Likewise, if more of the precipitation that falls on Colorado is rain instead of snow, that doesn't bode well for our water supply, which relies on summertime snowmelt.

What other science says that our CO2 emissions aren't altering the climate system? Can you be provide details? Fossil fuels are hardly unsubsidized, as the very real costs of their use aren't accounted for in their price.

Inhofe is indeed a scumbag - targeting scientists with his witch hunt, calling AGW a "hoax", and insisting that there shouldn't be a separation between church and state. He's the paid shill for Big Oil/Gas/Coal, and little more.

You're just jealous that government workers have maintained a level of justice and respect that private sector workers have lost, mainly because of people like you that despise unions.

Why "bravo"? Tell those gays to quit their whining just because one of them got killed, apparently just for being gay? If the victim was black, and his death due to a lynching, would you tell blacks to just suck it up and move on? Why?

You can't provably state "there is no correlation between tornadoes and climate change". There are indications that the energy available in the atmosphere is increasing, which generally aids in the formation of the storms that are likelier to produce tornadoes.

There is no "climate police" - your rhetoric is getting overheated. Did you not see the list I presented earlier of the targets of Inhofe's witch hunt? How does putting scientists onto a hit list not endanger our preparedness for natural disasters?

You keep repeating that the connection between CO2 and climate change is weak, but without evidence. It's a rather extraordinary claim, since it flies in the face of what we've known for over 100 years.

I never said "disaster" was "imminent". I do tend to think on longer timescales than the next quarterly profit report, but we're in a position something like that of a fellow who's jumped off the 100th floor and as he passes the 50th, believes everything is OK.

I'm not "hiding behind" anything. These are the facts: The climate system is changing because the energy balance has been altered to retain more incoming solar radiation. That increased energy retention is because there's more CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gases), and the reason there's more CO2 is because of our burning of fossil fuels - taking the ancient, buried carbon in them and combining with O2 via combustion and releasing it into the air as CO2. We are now engaging in a massive geoengineering experiment, mostly ignorantly. We know that the climate system is quite sensitive to small temperature changes - a few degrees warmer overall, and we lose ice. A few degrees cooler, and we get an Ice Age. Both of those consequences would be very bad for us, and for many species. We are not in a position to move to another planet - we're stuck on this one, and are entirely dependent on the global ecosystem for our survival. We tamper with it at potentially great peril to us.

There are basic sets of data, available and open to all, that can be analyzed by anyone with the requisite skills. No data are hidden or discarded. The job of the rejectionists is to use that data and make a persuasive science-based case that better explains the entirety of the observations we have. They have completely failed to do so. Sniping, smearing, and attacking scientists isn't the way it's done, but so far, that's been their strategy.

I'd be more impressed by "auditors" like McIntyre if they actually investigated, rather than demand turnkey applications that they can merely re-run. That's not how results are examined and verified or rejected. It requires independent work and usually different but equal techniques. Merely badmouthing scientists isn't science. Einstein didn't just call Newton a fraud and a charlatan and leave it at that.

We have never experienced 400 ppm as a species. We have increased it so rapidly that it's likely the biosphere won't be able to adapt fast enough. Since we're completely enmeshed, and have no other planet to go to, that's likely to be bad for us. Never mind all the other life on the planet.

Surface temperatures haven't dropped - and the theory isn't that as CO2 increases, surface temperatures increase in lockstep. Most of the increased energy in the system is going into the oceans anyway, and doing things like melting Arctic sea ice and the land ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and alpine areas.

True, more CO2 usually increases plant growth and productivity, but CO2 isn't the limiting factor, nor does it promote just the plants we utilize. Consider shifts in the timing of the seasons and precipitation and precipitation types, and that weeds will benefit just as much, if not more, than the plants we need.

If can be assured that fracking is safe, and that frackers assume liability for any damages they cause, I'm not opposed to it. However, we need to keep a very close eye on what and how they're doing it. Natural gas is better than coal, but that's not a high bar. Renewables are our only real choice.

I never said kids were supposed to die because of Inhofe - just that his endless attacks on science will lead to more tragedies like the tornado. We need to learn as much as possible about tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. so we can adapt to them as best we can. Inhofe dismisses all that as nonsense. He's just plain wrong and a scumbag to boot.

As for nuclear, when it solves the waste problem and doesn't rely on the taxpayer-provided liability cap subsidy it enjoys, I'll give it a listen.

Thanks for conceding that capitalism can flourish under a venal, corrupt, authoritarian regime. All the talk from libertarians about capitalism being a creator of political freedom is just plain babble and just plain wrong. There's more than a bit of truth to the idea that capitalists envy China - no messy citizens to get in their way. They can just steamroll their way to profits, and that's ideal.

Indeed, if the people are allowed some degree of economic success, then they can be denied their political rights. It's too bad the Constitution doesn't have a 0th Amendment, stating that Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of ownership, production, and trade, eh? For some reason, the FF were more interested in protecting our political and civil rights than they were in making America safe for profit. Pity.

Since worker safety is a cost, and capitalism is relentless in pushing down costs, worker safety is too often sacrificed in the pursuit of profit and beating one's competitors. Do you favor the repeal of all laws regarding worker safety, and, how would doing so not return us to the bloody era that existed before they were created and enforced? There's a reason so few people here suffer because of work-related accidents compared to 100 years ago, and it's not because of market forces.

How is it a "special right" not to be murdered just for being gay? Please explain.

You just hate being reminded that certain kinds of people in this country still get held back, knocked down, and murdered just for being what they are. You'd rather pretend that everything is just fine and perfect in America.

You're wrong, and you detest those who remind you just how short of its ideals America is.

I don't get your argument regarding CO2. If it's critical to plant life, that means it cannot be a pollutant? Explain. Consider all the elements and compounds that are critical to life but can be toxic if there's too much. Iron, for example.

The second set of hacked emails doesn't prove anything. Yet another instance of cherry-picked context-free informal commentary. Put it this way - if climate scientists were manipulating the data and the science, it would be found out easily and quickly. That's the key element that rejectionists miss. You can do your own analysis of the surface temperature record, for example, and verify that Jones is correct, as has been found by many other scientists and interested citizens. Are you familiar with the BEST project?

You can assert "substantial human sacrifice" all you want but that does not make it so. Given that carbon-based fuels are quite finite and non-renewable, we'll have to come up with other energy sources eventually anyway. Why not start now?

Like I said earlier, the human contribution to CO2 concentrations doesn't have to be the largest value to be significant. Why else has CO2 gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150 years? A 40% increase isn't small.

What does Jackson's resignation from the EPA have to do with climate science?

Can you be more specific than a reference to the stolen emails? The scientific work of both Jones and Mann was investigated and nothing was found - no instances of "deliberately misconstruing results". Absolutely none. Both have had their work verified by others as well, using analogous and quite different approaches. There's no scientific malpractice at all. That's a total falsehood spread by the rejectionists and their blogosphere echo chamber.

The science isn't flawed, biased, or distorted. Period.

Talk with your political representatives regarding the policies they've devised that you believe are incorrect. You won't have the science to back up your views, but that's your choice.