>Human-caused climate change means the once-bountiful snowpack that feeds the river has dwindled. Really? "human caused"? Let me remind the author (if he reads

>Human-caused climate change means the once-bountiful snowpack that feeds the river has dwindled. Really? "human caused"? Let me remind the author (if he reads these comments) the Earth's climate it changing all the time. Also the whole topic is a magnet for disinformation by ruthless interest groups (nation states trying to protect themselves and harm their enemies, political organisations, financial lobbies). So sorry, but I'll not believe any research in the field that isn't personally verifiable (all data and code open) also even without all the meddling interest groups do climate research/simulation is hard. Wake me up when we have some concrete results we can predict (for example drought/flood patterns), then I'll consider it more seriously. For anyone quick to label me an" anthropomorphic climate change denier" let me say I don't deny greenhouse gases cause warming, but there are two important unknowns. First how much of current climate change is caused by anthropogenic co2/methane and how much is caused by natural processes? What positive and negative feedback loops are at play planet wide? We are very far from being able to answer it with any certainty. So, an argument someone could make, until we know the impact for sure isn't it prudent to limit our greenhouse gases emissions just in case? To which I say yes, it is. And I'm all for it (nuclear and hydro power, electrification etc), but we can't shoot ourselves in the foot to scratch an itch. Yes, we should endeavour to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but when other countries (China) are emitting more and more are we to voluntarily deindustrialise ourselves in the name of being green? No way.