We are having a very profound affect on things, from causing extinction of species to changing the landscape etc... however I doubt anyone is going to argue or dismiss this. However the issue regarding the warming is in a entirely different conversation. While some may try to use frogs as was her interest or monarch butterflies, or for that matter honey bees as examples of AGW, when they are related to other activities of man. I grew up on a farm in central ND that was once part of a salt water sea. Geogrpahic changes, of our continents and other on going naturally occurring events where the cause. That same area not to many years ago where ice covered as well. Have rock deposits on the farm that are only found in Canada normally with the exceptions of deposits from the glaciers as they melted. Normal erosion that is occurring will result in the future of the Great Lakes disappearing as the natural plug at Niagara is steadly retreating to the rivers headwaters. This is going to occur man or no man. Think of the impact that will have! However the zealots are claiming the retreat is man made or faster than they think it should be. Her book talks about the acidification of the sea and loss to coral life, but does not talk about the fact that many of the so called areas are reforming as part of the normal cycles. So I am not dismissing what she is advocating but the cause and affect is highly in doubt. Man also has to be given credit for recognizing mistakes and fixing them. I think we will in the future move away from fossil fuels, real science will find a solution. The find will come faster when politics get the heck out of the way and stop picking winners that are not. Wind and solar for example cannot sustain a constant flow of energy requiring a backup because the sun does not shine all the time nor does the wind blow all the time . We have went through the BS corn ethanol as well, simply not a replacement fuel alternative. Got to be one of the dumbest green ideas I have ever encountered. One thing to keep in mind is this, many who promote the AGW agenda are do as I say not as I do!! Al Gore is the poster child of this, but when you look around few of the zealots really embrace what they preach! Kind of the church matron looking down her nose at some unwed teen for having sex outside of marriage but when you look at the date of the wedding and date her first child was born, one would have to believe that a 5 month pregnancy produced 8lb baby!!!! So be concerned, look and learn, but be prepared to avoid the kool aid like 97% figures floated around, and it is not one sided either!! Both sides of the debate have either been flat out wrong or intentional in trying to deceive!! The truth can be found but my opinion is that to get it is not coming from what we currently know but what we will find in the future simply because as you so precisely point out the earth is very old and a 10-100 or even 500 year period is not a mark on a yard stick!! I am a AGW skeptic to the point that I do not believe the data being used to promote it. I am a firm believer that we are warming trend and have been since before the end of the ice age, and that we have not yet uncovered or disclosed the cause!