" So, how much research grant money does Ms. Decker count on for her income? I heard this same argument concerning Global Cooling/Ice Age back in 1975. I also heard about the population bomb which was supposed to go off 30 years ago. I've heard the story of chicken little, and seen that China and India are conveniently absent from the standards of Kyoto. Why should I believe you misguided scientists and you high priest Al Gore now? "

" What hogwash. The entire man-made component of CO2 comprises about 2% of greenhouse gasses. Even if we totally eliminated our contribution (which we can't), it would have no effect on global warming. It is much more effective to concentrate our resources on mitigating the effects: ie building more dams, eliminating malaria, etc... "

" Ten years? Ten thousand years would be a more indicative collection of mere estimates. Global warming/cooling is a sham from those who have some pathological agenda. Al Gore heads one of them? My God! When will you lemmings grow up? "

" It's Dr. Decker. Why believe scientists at all Mark? You may look me up on the internet if you are curious about my work. My current funding is in the field of Astrobiology. The history of global warming denial is fascinating. Most of it has it's roots from the think-tank called The George C. Marshall Foundation that was founded in the 1980s to combat scientific consensus that SDI (Star Wars) would not work. They learned that it was cheaper to combat established science through traditional media by attacking the work of scientists than to actually conduct science and publish in scientific journals. After the fall of the Soviet Union they tackled global warming, and have been very successful when one considers that we have known about it for over thirty years. The George C. Marshall foundation is committed to government non-interference and the unregulated free market. I have no problem with that. But instead of arguing those principles openly, they attack the scientists in the public forum. They have also been involved with denying that cancer is caused by cigarettes, and that the thinning ozone hole increases the incidence of skin cancer. "

" This is a good article "

" George C. Marshall Institute. (Not George C. Marshall Foundation) "

" Kelly, the data you chose to highlight your argument doesn't add up. We know temps have been higher in the past than they are today, therefore all of the following can not be true: "CO2 levels correspond with global mean temperature... At no time in the last 650,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been higher than 300 parts per million. Current levels are around 375 ppm." The fact is, temps have been higher in the past than they are now many many times throughout the history of the planet. Even within the last 1000 years temps have been higher than they are today. At least some, if not all, of the supporting data you cite can not be correct. Either CO2 levels do NOT correspond to global mean temperature; At some point CO2 levels HAVE been higher than 300ppm; Or current levels of CO2 are NOT 375 ppm. Yes, it is true the climate is changing, it always is, the planet is always either entering into, or coming out of an ice age. Now, that you are a "scientist" in the California State University system we all understand you are required to regurgitate this stuff to keep your job, and your compensation is somewhat dependent upon recieving grants that have to be approved by politicians and beaurocrats. So I don't blame you for attempting to sell this less-than-theory - we all need to make our house payments. But when you use this issue to press for changes to the City budget (ie. new taxes) we know you're just using this global warming hysteria for political purposes, and that is where you lose all credibility. "

" Astrobiology makes my house payments, not global warming. As to the other portion of Tom's comment;as a biologist I think I will allow the meterologists and geologists to speak for me. [Portion of an American Geophysical Union Statement] Human Impacts on Climate Adopted by Council December, 2003 Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts. Pretty much says it all. "

" Well, my comment on the Marshall Institute was deleted, apparently because of the links, so..........The history of global warming denial is very interesting. In 1984 the George C Marshall Institute was created with the express purpose of debunking the consensus within the field of Physics that Reagan's SDI "Star Wars" would not be successful. Their method was expressly NOT to fund the research of contrarians. Rather, they learned that it was cheaper to bring the argument out of the scientific journals and into the OP-ED pages of the regular media. THat is the forum they used to attack the science of others. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they mostly tackled Global Warming. They have been very successful so far. Their motivation is based on a strong belief that regulation is wrong, and that free enterprise can take care of all problems. "

" If you want to follow the money, check out CNN.Money article, "Exxon linked to climate change pay out. Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans." It's amazing that people who clearly don't know what they're talking about, still won't stop talking. When it comes to science, I'll take the word of a Scientist over that of Jim, Kevin or Mark M. "

" Thanks for the information, "Correction". The George C. Marshall Institute website has a lot of interesting and factual information on global warming and other issues. (Damn the NVR and their policy of not listing websites: despite your warning I ended up at the "Foundation" website by mistake and I now know more about the "Marshall Plan" than I ever wanted to know...) "

" Yeap... it's warming here and cooling over there and it's all our fault. If, and it's a rather large if, GW is occuring thank the left for killing nuclear power which increased our dependance upon coal and gas fired plants. "

" The point of bringing up the Marshall Institute is that they are intellectually dishonest in their approach to science. They support unfettered enterprise as a matter of public policy, but instead of arguing on that matter, they argue science in the public eye (that is...not by doing science themselves, and definitely ot by publishing in peer-reviewed articles). Members of the Marshall Institute have also denied the link between tobacco and cancer, and have denied that a thinning ozone can create a higher incidence of cancer. All public disinformation, none of it peer-reviewed by other scientists. "

" ....American Meteorological Society 02/02/2007 --------------------------------------------- New AMS Statement on Climate Change: Climate is Changing; Humans Play a Role Despite uncertainties, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, according to a new information statement on climate change issued by the American Meteorological Society today. "

" Don't forget that yeast are the greatest producers of CO2. 45% of the sugar they eat turns to CO2. Maybe we can spray to get rid of them. "

" To "Statements from AMU" you're citing interpretations of computer simulations. You know what, my computer simulation of the 49ers 2006 season resluted in them winning the Super Bowl. As they say with any computer simulation: garbage in garbage out. It's no surprise that when the people pushing the Global Warming hysteria put together a computer simulation they would interpret it's results in such a way as to support their preconceived beleifs/political ambitions. After all, they were awarded grants to reach just that conclusion. "

" Our city council members are going to help? Right, that will be after they figure out how to waste more taxpayer money. Give the job to the NVTA, the guys who run empty buses all day polluting the atmosphere and snarling traffic. "

" scientists don't get grants for conclusions, but for uncertainties. It is against their financial interests to say that the subject is decided. After all, then the grant money will go to the engineers and the urban planners. "

" Just a question on your statement "When it comes to science, I'll take the word of a Scientist over that of Jim, Kevin or Mark M." Which scientists will you take the word of, the ones supporting the theory that humans are causing GW or those that don't? Contrary to popular belief, there are many reputable scientists in the latter group. "

" Dear Dr. Decker, As you suggested, I did look you up on the internet. Very impressive and congrats on your Ph.D. in Forrest Ecology in 2001. __ I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for you to get arguments from noncredentialed, nonscientist people. On the other hand, think how doubly frustrating it must be for us to have a person of your standing calling for political action based on .... garbage in / garbage out studies.__ Yes, I feel qualified to label these studies as garbage. I see in your resume that you have worked with computer modeling. I have as well. So you and I know that all computer modeling is based on assumptions and all carry the disclaimer “... if nothing changes...”. Yet the atmosphere and the climate of this planet has never not been in a state of change. You know perfectly well that if you alter any of the assumptions and then run it out a hundred years or more, the results are unrecognizable.__ Add to that simple math and your 650,000 year is er, umm, ... nuts. (sorry, couldn’t think of a more sophisticated word) __ The converse to your example is that if we erase the last 650,000 years including the Industrial Revolution we could only reduce co2 by 75 PPM . Do you see my point about tis example? __ I’d love to see you as a scientist, who wants to engage in politics, set aside some time to study the dynamics involved in the politics of global warming. Ask your self why - in the last few months, has global warming become a world wide mantra. Let me presume to give you a start with this notion: In a battle of wits between the bureaucrats of world and the scientists of the world - bureaucrats win without raising a sweat. __ So why do bureaucrats even care ? I hope you’ll think it through. "

" This human-caused global warming charade is nothing but b.s.! The folks pushing this nonsense have an agenda...to control capitalism and the people of this world with tons of regs and laws to restrict individual freedoms. I am not against taking care of our environment, but I do not like some ultra-rich liberal who owns several mansions and flies personal jets to tell me how to reduce my greenhouse gases. The world exists through cycles, always has, always will. Let's focus on real threats like terrorism, nuclear weapons in Iran and our non-existant border. "

" The term global warming strikes fear in the heart of some people every time you say it, but it's simply a rise in temperature over time, and it's happened before. We have maybe 100 years of data on a rock (earth) that's 6 billion years old - Mother Nature tends to even herself out, and the fact is, the Earth is cyclical. Which is more arrogant for humans: to say we caused it or to say we're going to fix it. Where’s Al Gore now – bet he’s not pouring his KoolAid in upstate New York with over 12 feet of snow. "

" Looking for a sure thing, go to church. Science guarantees nothing. Ever ask your self why you are so certain the sun will rise tomorrow? You might say, because it always has. You can establish that empirically, yet it only demonstrates the past not the future. There is no absolute certainty that it will rise tomorrow. There are no guarantees that what science or politicians predict will come to pass. You can, however, make sound decisions about what you do today in expectation of what tomorrow might bring based on certain information. We are told that there is a very good possibility that certain emissions contribute to a specific change that will have a great effect on the future and that quite possibly what we do today will make a difference. I will probably not live to witness this effect, perhaps my children may or my grandchildren. We are being asked today to place a bet for generations to come. What is the cost today to prevent what may happen? Will we be willing to give up a sufficient amount of what we desire now to prevent what may come to pass? Should the future prove not to be what is predicted will any sacrifice we make today be unreasonable? My own comfort level tells me it will not matter to me but I would rather bet on insuring a future and not losing it. "

" Old fart, you can't be too old if you don't remember the predictions of global cooling about 30 years ago. Same scientists, same passionate arguments about how they were all in "consensus" over the facts the world was cooling down and we were all going to starve to death. "

" Kevin, old enough to remember the fear and misinformation of fluoridation, another politically motivated scare tactic. Still looking for a sure thing? My recollections are that it (Global cooling) was no where supported with as much consensus as the present theory. What will the cost be if we ignore the warning and are proved wrong? Weighed against heeding the warning and being proved right? "

" Lets keep running empty buses around town polluting, emitting green house gasses and causing traffic jams and keep hoping that someone will finally ride them before the cost is so high no one can afford it. "

" For just a moment, politics aside, global warming aside. The burning of fossil fuels in the massive quantities that we're burning them is not good for our health. Do you really think that breathing that brown atmosperic muck that hangs over cities is no problem at all? Do you really think that the vegetation doesn't mind? So I ask those that deny there's any problem: Even if global warming is not occuring or even if it's not man induced (which I disagree), What problem do you have with seeking alternative energy? I'm not even going to bother suggesting we be more conservative with our energy use. How dare I question your right to waste. But really, what's your problem with alternative energy? "

" Finally someone makes a sensible stop to the craziness. Ok, you don't want to breath the muck, so why not go for nuclear power. It will stop the emissions of dirty coal plants and it will free up the natural gas for automobiles. It is the easiest alternative to gasoline because todays gasoline engines can be easily converted to natural gas use. Liberals and democrats are so political they can't see the easy solutions. "

" I like the empty buses. They are the icon of liberal democrat stupidity. "

" good data out "

" I am calling for societal action based on the findings of most climate scientists around the world who understand this link much better than I do. This link has been known for many decades. The computer models that are used are not based on garbage, but data. -------------------------------------------- Societies and intitutions that have come out with statements recognizing that the data show humans cause global warming: --American Meterological Society--- --NOAA---- --American Geophysical Union------ --AAAS-- --National Academy of Sciences--- ---IPCC--- -US Climate Change Science Program----- ------------------------------------------------ The 650,000 year record is from bubbles in ice cores, not models. And I really don't understand your other point, except to say that most of the warming from the elevation of 75ppm CO2 has not occurred yet. In other words, there is a lag. (if I recall correctly from the December AGU meeting). "

" EXACTLY, wazoo. Their thinking is so clouded with political garbage and their trust in scientists, the government and politicians so jaded, they miss the obvious facts. They assume all scientists have an ulterior motive. Okay, maybe some do, but the vast majority do not, those that are dedicated to making this world a better place. You kind of learn over the years to read between the lines and can sense who's trustworthy and who's not. And I will take the word of the scientist who seems trustworthy and has a good reputation backed by the proper credentials over a politically clouded individual who sits there and says there's nothing wrong with all the coal burning and other polluting fuels we consume. "

" We have some sources of power that do not add CO2. Nuclear energy, wind and water, are three. And why aren't they being used more? Because there are some people who do not understand that nuclear power has been made safer, they do not want to hurt the fish, or hurt the birds who are too stupid not to fly into a wind mill. Even if you agree with these people, that these sources are not a long term answer to CO2 emmissions, they are certainly a short term answer. The fish and birds are certainly affected by CO2 also. To protest against these sources as a short term alternative is pure stupidity. In other words do not complain about global warming and in the same breath try to shut down the alternatives that are available today. "

" I fully agree with Sandra on that. France has come a long way on alternative energy. In fact most, if not all of their power is nuclear now. The other half, albeit a small half, of the CO2 issue is to allow vegetation to consume it. If our energy consumption was from alternative sources, obviously there would be a lot less pollution. But with less pollution, vegetation would be healthier, thereby consuming more CO2. Eliminating the destruction of rainforests would allow for this also. It's kind of hard though in a logging industry and in horizontally growing cities. A very simple solution would be for cities to simply plant more trees. I'm not sure how much CO2 the average tree consumes in a year, but the more the better. But Sandra is absolutely correct, why not take advantage of alternative sources of energy. Oil is not going to be here forever. We'll have to do this sooner or later anyway, why not now? "

" I have no problem with alternative fuels. I do however think it idiotic to convert food (ie corn) into fuel. The increase in food prices is already causing riots in Mexico. Natural gas is a option, but the citizens of Vallejo recently nixed an LNG port facility in their city. We have enough coal resources in America to last for a thousand years. Supposedly the Germans flew airplanes during WWII with fuel made from coal and the S. Africans also made fuel from coal during their embargo. As soon as oil prices go high enough to make these alternatives viable, we will see them come to market. "

" I am very gratified that the subject has changed from the motives of scientists to solutions. We need to look at all alternatives to burning fossil fuels intelligently (i.e., using data, not pre-conceived notions). We also need to work together and get past the blame. Finally, the empty buses are telling us something: we need to use them or demand that they work for us, on schedules that are convenient. The solution to this problem is not only with the government, but also in individual choices and lifestyle decisions. Thank you all for commenting. "

" is a fine solution if you are willing to accept lots of government regulation. It needs to be a highly regulated industry. I am not sure that Americans are willing to accept that kind of regulation. Additionally, one presidential administration may make it a priority, while another may neglect enforcement of regulations, leaving us with dangerous plants. So, if we decide to go nuclear, we need safeguards and strict regulation that is somehow mandatory from administration to administration. I can't think of an example with that kind of consistency off the top of my head. "

" I agree with Kevin on the ethanol issue. It probably takes more energy to create the fuel than the energy you get from the fuel. Same thing with powering vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells. It takes more energy to extract pure hydrogen than the energy you get from consuming it. Not only that but hydrogen fuel cells are extremely volatile. You get rear-ended driving one of those and you've just become a suicide bomb. But at least scientists are exploring the alternatives and learning from the ones that result in failures and counter-production. They are discovering more and more alternatives. Some work very well and some don't. But the amount of coal left is debatable. Besides that, coal burning is just plain dirty. It puts out tons of "SOX and NOX" (Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide) among the usual CO2 etc., etc. There are far better alternatives to this, just more expensive to build, initially. "

" Americans won't accept regulation? Please. We let the government tell us what kind of toliet we can use for Christ's sake. We have no problem with regulation... "

" Actually, compared to countries where Nuclear is the main source of power, we are very unregulated. Most of those countries are European socialist or dictatorships such as in Iran. Do you honestly think our regulation is that strong or consistent? Don't answer with your gut. Think first. Would you be willing to accept more regulation in order to accept nuclear power, even if it meant a trend towards European style socialism? "

" Viva la Nuclear! "

" Why and how does a move toward nuclear energy require a shift toward socialism? If by regulation you mean safety regulations at the nuclear plant, our existing nuclear plants already have those, and those safety regulations have not changed with every new term of political office. But safety regulations in no way require a shift toward some socialist dictatorship system. The point of fact is the global warming hysteria pushers are after only one thing, political power, so it is no suprise that the mention of nuclear power draws out calls for a shift to a socialist political system as that is, after all, what the global warmers are really after. If they really only wanted to shift our power sources to something other than oil they'd be spending their time and efforts developing that technology, not trying to convince us to put them in power so they can invent new taxes and new regulations that will somehow magically result in the Earth's first ever static state of weather. "

" Since when did a purely socialist state run anything efficiently? The biggest disasters occur in communist places like the former USSR because they are not open to criticism and are inept and corrupt like all dictatorships. "

" The Register keeps censoring my posts! Time to have a chat with the editor again. I'll keep it simple...do a search and read Robert Ehrlich's paper entitled, "Solar Resonant Diffusion Waves as a Driver of Terrestrial Climate Change." This is a brilliant piece of research that shows the correlation between solar phenomenon and climate change. "

" Isn't it strange that (occasionally) the environmental wacho crowd gets their urls posted, yet not one url has made it online (that I am aware of) that contains information contrary to the man-made global warming scare? Just a coincidence?? "

" “It’s Dr. Decker?” Geesh, I definitely sensed the sharp knife of high brow and overeducated elitism in my unforgivable faux pax of calling you as I would any other unejumacated, unwashed member of the rabble populace at large. I do not bank too much currency in titles that are Piled High and Deep, so, kindly value my diversity and don’t take offense that I will not bow before you, your grace. And THAT ma’am, is exactly what I have come to expect from those who are pushing the man made global warning religion. We are looked down on, ridiculed and cast aside as deniers, and religious zealots with blinders. Yes, inconceivable, and fascinating, yes, how we undejumicated rabble could possibly contradict you and your doctorate title. All I have is a measly Bachelor of Science.. I’m not worthy, am I, Ms. Decker? I look forward to you hopping down (DO doctors “hop?”) off your cloud nine of higher education and speak to we common folk one on one, and not as Al Gore does, looked down on as mere children. "

" Man oh MAN! Are you red-eye for a humorously “Inconvenient Truth?” Remember when the Political Weather Channel’s so-called scientist Ms. Heidi Cullen lashed out against Meteorologists who DARED to disagree with her religion, by stating that they should have their American Meteorological Society Seal of Approvals revoked? Um… just as Row of Roe vs Wade has come out against the law which bears her name, so has one of the founding fathers of the Man-Made Global Warming religion, French scientist “Mr.” Claude Allegre (no relation to the allergy medication), is now on MY side of this debate, having serious issues with those who have taken the science and made it into the unholy religion it is today! I find it humorous that this scientist and I would have arrived at the same conclusion, but with my much lower BS! Do you think we should now take away this guy’s PhD, since his is now WAY off the politically incorrect reservation, and without Gravitas? "

" Alright. Geesh! Will THIS edit, my THIRD get printed, or is this web site SO pro man made global warming that it is censoring this movie??? Go to the internet and do a search on the words "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you will be able to view a lengthy retort to the intolerant and even fascist view of Man Made Global Warming. Our children in the Napa Valley Unified School system are already being taught that MMGW is a fact, when in reality, it is NOT. If you REALLY value truthful discussion, and not another Michael Moore lie, watch this video, and REALLY debate this religion. There. NO web site URL. Happy yet? "