I understand the author (like so many others) to be saying: Technology can be used to fight global warming. That kind of an assertion (as argument)--as I would ask my composition and rhetoric students to understand--makes a claim (i.e., the author is trying to prove something) which is followed by support (i.e, ostensible evidence in the form of facts, opinions, examples, etc.). So far so good. There is, however, as even an undergraduate student of argument can readily recognize, an important underlying and disputable assumption (i.e., warrant) involved in the claim: global warming is a fact that must be mitigated. Well, as for me, I simply have not jumped on the bandwagon with the "global warming" zealots, so the argument about its mitigation is much ado (prematurely and irresponsibly) about (probably or possibly) nothing. Yes, it might be a fact that "global warming" is happening, and that might be a dangerous process; however, there is simply not enough persuasive, empirical, and sensible evidence for anyone but the most gullible to buy into the far-reaching assumption. Therefore, the question arises: Why--except for political and economic reasons rather than purely environmental reasons--are so many people so eager to blindly accept and advance the claims that something must be done? This complicated argument about "global warming" must simply go back to basics. The zealots, however, will almost certainly resist any such plea for common sense.