So, far in this thread I've seen a number of reasoning fallacies: slippery slope thining, ad hominem fallacy, questionable authority, searching for a perfect solution, appealing to emotions, etc. What concerns me most about this debate is what I see as the general public's inability to think about this issue in any meaningful way. As I say this, I realize that the effort it would take to find evidence and arguments that are highly reliable is more than I want to make, and I make part of my living teaching critical thinking skills. The hours one would have to invest to fully understand all of the current reliable data would be quite extensive. If my assessment of the effort needed is correct, I find it easy to imagine that most of what we (we being the collective general population of the plant) "know" about global warming is filled with bad information and poor reasoning. Because of this I take a slightly different stand on the issue. I ask, what damage can be caused by assuming that it is in our best interest to reduce our "carbon footprints"? And, can any resulting damage be avoided or lessened? So, on a personal level, I can take responsibility for this postion by making reasonable attempts to reduce my carbon footprints and encouraging a wider range of consumer options that would allow me to pursue this with more vigor.