I agree with Joe on the points he has raised. I think one of the main problems with the global warming debate is the lack of objectivity by all parties - myself included. Most, if not all, proponents of man caused global warming resulting in climate catastrophes are funded by green groups or by government money that is based on global warming concerns. If global warming is shown to be caused primarily by natural factors their funding dries up. Having worked in a university environment where federal funding was the main source of your research income I have first hand experience that if you don't toe the party line your funding dries up. Many oil and gas companies have jumped on the global warming hysteria because there is big bucks in carbon sequestration from real and proposed tax credits not to mention that injecting carbon dioxide into oil and gas reservoirs can substantially improve recovery of hydrocarbons. Despite the fact that some scientists claim the sun is not a primary source for global warming I remain a proponent of that view. The correspondence between solar activity and global temperature changes is too great to ignore. I doubt that we can account for all of the radiation from the sun including far infrared, radio and magnetic effects but solar activity such as sunspots can be accurately measured and corresponds extremely well with global temperature changes. See "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" by NASA scientist Kenneth Schatten and Hughes researcher Douglas Hoyt. As far as I know they have no axe to grind and have written a fairly balanced book on the subject. By the way, if you think CO2 is all bad see http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp Clear Skies Don