I was sorta joking there... I think that the alarmist method is just as bad as the "everything's alright" method handling the situation. The only problem is that it gets us nowhere when everyone has blinders on to the other side of the equation (Stop ALL Consumption! vs Consume it all as Fast as you Want!). Just like in politics, we've gone too far to either extreme while the intelligent middle is abandoned.

As with almost every other human endeavor, this discussion would benefit from people and politicians *thinking* beyond their lifetimes. It might not matter a huge deal to me that the oceans rise several feet in 100 years, but it sure could affect my kids or grandkids. In a debt driven disposable society, where mortgaging the future is the norm, I doubt that mentality is going to change soon. It's a shame because I think that no matter how much people disagree with the alarmist "pap", there is solid science and evidence that we are currently contributing to our own long term demise. If not the weather or atmosphere there's also plenty of evidence we are over-consuming and poisoning our own water supplies (many say the next resource wars will be over fresh water).

Seriously, if people believe everything is all good and that we can't possibly effect the earth, go ahead, live out your days in ignorant bliss. Plenty of people do (we often lament their survival preparedness). I don't know if the turning point is in 10 years or 100 or 1000. Alarmists will say it's right now and the head in the sand folks will say never. I fall somewhere inbetween, leaning on the side of caution tells me that *if* it's possible we are ruining our atmosphere and that there are alternatives available that won't kill growth or convenience, we should make every effort to implement them.