Ban words Russ? There are any of myriads effects which are indisputably anthropogenic. climate change I don't know enough about to separate anthropogenic from other factors, but mainstream science seems comfortable discussing them both. Banning words from public discussion can have chilling effects, making that discussion incomplete and less worthwhile. On other topics we seem to allow participants to allege one thing and for others to come along and refute, and we all remain good friends. Would rather that someone cross a political line before we rule speech out. But its not my forum obviously.

What's the difference? Well, if the planet is heating up because of some internal process operating to increase solar radiation, or the obscure perturbations of the planet Zogg, then there is precious little we can do to affect the process, although there are some strategies we could pursue..

If it is anthropogenic, then there is a lot we can do (at least theoretically).

It is interesting, and rather sad, that what is at heart a scientific, technical question, has rapidly become politicized, and that rational discussion is becoming rather rare (on both sides).

I say keep "anthropogenic". It is much more spiffy than "man caused." What's a college education worth if you can't use three dollar words....

It is because "anthropogenic" is at the center of the political aspect of global warming that I made that recommendation -- politics not belonging here. For me to say any more on GW goes to politics because for some reason what should be science has been taken over, it's either politics or religion now, not sure. Later.

Bovinogenic Global warming is probably a more serious problem (just about) than the hot air generated by poorly educated Politicians despite their best efforts.

I'm a little concerned by the self regulating 'Newspeak' though, which it would, seems to have gone further than even political correctness. Has it really come to this. Anthropogenic is a just a word, which has a very specific scientific meaning even though it seems to have been hijacked by the news media and now portrays it to the rather ignorant general public as being a political word.

If for example Las Vegas has to be abandoned, should we blame it on anthropogenic or Bovinogenic global warming or on the stupidity of the property developers building a large city in the middle of a desert in the first place. It has happened previously in the archaeological record. It will happen again. As in England at the moment, building houses on flood plains hasn't been terribly successful.

Building unsafe nuclear reactor designs on known Earthquake faults hasn't been too successful either.

I'm more concerned about the ongoing atmospheric geo-engineering and it effects on the human population.

For some reason I'm reminded of a quite brief Richard Brautigan poem called Fever Monument:
"We got hot
and died"

Hikermor is right, it really doesn't matter if warming or cooling is man made or triggered or natural processes, whatever we do lets not throw out valid scientific observations for political or economic reasons. Neither should we be shills of course. Being prepared is all about scene size up and making life-saving decisions. Droughts are historically cyclic, and one likely outcome is it may cycle back to a wetter environment for a while, while the factors build that really whack us with a longer term drought - and we are talking a major population migration on our own continent (as there is now in Africa). We will have missed it. We have put our hands over our ears and discounted next best steps. That's our amygdalae talking, ignoring the far waning tide to gather flopping fish on the sand, that builds into a tsunami. If we're planning for our grand kids to be around where we live now, we need to be more intelligent than that I think.

You had better grab your bergs now, hikermor. Nearly all Alaskan glaciers are dramatically retreating, and have been for some time. By the time Hikermor III and AKSAR III are around, there quite likely will be no more tidewater glaciers available in Alaska, at any price.

For example see Glacier Retreat in Alaska. For another example from the primary science literature see Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level

Unfortunately the old sales line "Get them while the're hot!" doesn't apply to glaciers.

I know that your point is perfectly valid. But I still recall those immense rivers of ice I grappled with on Denali some time ago - they were immense! Does this mean that in the future one will have to WALK up the West Buttress route to get to the summit?

Well, since at 20,237 feet (6,168 m), Denali is the highest peak in North America, it will probably never lose all of it's glacier ice. So I suspect hikermor III will probably still want an ice axe and crampons for his climb.

However even the big glaciers in the park are retreating and or thinning dramatically. For example, the NPS has a nice web display of photo pairs showing the changes over time. They also have a pdf about glacial monitoring that is quite interesting. As an archaeologist you might find this one interesting.

The lower elevation and tidewater glaciers are where the changes are most remarkable. In the recent movie "Chasing Ice", photographer James Balog placed automatic cameras at many glaciers worldwide to make time lapse movies of the changes. At Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound, he had to move his camera several times during the course of the project because the glacier was retreating so fast it went out of view! (Chasing Ice is a great film, do see it if you can.)

To those of us who have lived in Alaska even a few years, the changes are obvious and impossible to ignore. For example, Exit Glacier near Seward is one of several Alaskan glaciers which are easily road accessable. I took a group of visitors there in 2007. Even though I go to Seward several times a year (boating, fishing, kayaking), I didn't have occaision to drive the 10 mile side road to Exit Glacier again until about 2011. The changes in the terminus of Exit Glaceir just about blew my socks off! Incredible that it shrunk so far in just four years.

When I read the discussion of "anthropogenic" I keep hearing the voice of a now long dead college professor explaining the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; and another, a wildlife management instructor who explained that all organisms change the environment in which they dwell. He was referring to sub-Saharan elephants and the expanse of desert, but we're all elephants in this way.

AKSAR, thanks for the reference! But I beg to differ with the headline writers - that's not trash, those are priceless artifacts (definitely, one man's trash is another's treasure..) Seriously, there should be all sorts of things exposed as glaciers recede (think Otzi). I know I made a few "deposits" myself.

Just speculation, but when Hidermor III returns to the lower 48 from his Alaskan vacation, how much water will he be able to bring with him? Will they search his luggage?