Carbon footprints and thoughts on global warming

According to Wiki, a "Carbon footprint is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide or CO₂ emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels; This is directly related to the amount of natural resources consumed, increasingly used or referred to as a measure of environmental impact. Carbon dioxide is recognized as a greenhouse gas, of which increasing levels in the atmosphere are linked to global warming and climate control.

http://carbonfootprint.com

My carbon footprint = 16,230 kg CO2 / year
The average person's carbon footprint in the US = 19,000 kg CO2 / year

I've heard about this website before, but had never checked it out until now. It's not the easiest site to use, and you do have to dig around for your power and gas bills in order to get an accurate number. So how do I assess this information? What exactly does 16,000 kgs of CO2 do to the atmosphere? I've done some reading about this and here's what I've come to understand. In a nutshell: Global warming is an observable fact whose underlying causes are disputed.

First the need to define some terms. The global warming debate quickly escalates into a pointless semantic argument among people who don't understand the terms they use.

• Global warming: Global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 1.4 °F relative to the period 1860–1900. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.
• Greenhouse effect: The undisputed phenomenon whereby carbon dioxide and methane gas serve to insulate the earth's surface by preventing solar energy escape into the atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth's surface temperature would be about 54 °F lower, rendering the earth lifeless. Thus, in the global warming debate, the greenhouse effect is neither "disbelieved" or "opposed" by opponents of human-caused climate change. What is debated is the underlying cause of climate change, i.e. is it caused by the man-made increase in greenhouse gases?, or are natural phenomena to blame?--things such as solar flares, geologic disturbances, expected climate variation, and others.
  
• C02 increases in the atmosphere are documented: Accepted measurements in the literature taken from the Mauna Loa laboratory have observed an increased in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from 313 ppm in 1960 to 375 ppm in 2005. When considered in isolation, adding lots of extra carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere enhances the insulating effect, i.e. cause the earth's crust to get warmer. But this never happens in isolation. There are always other factors that must be considered, compensatory actions that both modulate and distort the portion of the greenhouse effect caused by the increased C02. These factors include solar variation, so-called orbital forcing, volcanic emissions, thermal inertia of the earth's oceans, cooling pollutants like sulfate aerosols, and the thawing of methane-rich portions of the Siberian tundra. Despite the vast number of complicating factors, the debate boils down to a politically- and economically-charged disagreement regarding the human share of the global warming pie. A sensible person has choice but to acknowledge that a human piece of the pie at the very least exists. It the size of the pie and, more importantly, what to do about it that heats the discussion.
  

I don't pretend to be a fanatical environmentalist, but I do claim to be a rational person. I get frustrated with the predominant political climate in our country concerning environmentalism. Extremists on both sides of the issue pollute the arena of discourse by making wild, inflammatory claims that only prevent reasonable dialogue. Extremists on one side bury their heads in the sand, claiming that there hasn't even been a global temperature increase. It's one thing to disagree with the cause of a climate change, but pure ignorance to look at accepted, sound scientific data and deny that it is accurate. In my estimation, doing nothing about climate change would be catostrophic (perhaps not next year or even next decade, but certainly someday). On the other extreme, people like Al Gore trumpet imminent planetary extinction unless emissions are drastically reduced within a few years. Mr Gore ignores the grave economic consequence of mandating such drastic cuts before global economies are even remotely able to depend on renewable energy sources. The worldwide human toll of such an economic crisis would be staggering. Overreacting before research is more complete could lead to economic decline and paradoxical increases in greenhouse emissions as developed nations--the same ones who are pioneering renewable energy research--default back to fossil fuels economies.

I wish there could be a happy medium. I wish this could be an issue where the typical power players of public opinion--pundits, name-calling, vested interests, big business, misinformation, profiteering, uncritical acceptance of party platforms, and baseless emotional appeals--would take a hike. Is it too late for intelligent, reasonable people to dialogue using accurate, reliable information so as to come to a compassionate, feasible solution? I certainly hope not.