Apples to oranges not withdstanding, the analogy remains. Yes, we agree that there is a national debt, but the point here is that indeed, the amount is argued. We dan say that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is the higest on record - what that means is subject to debate, just as the effect of the size of our debt is subjedt to debate. To compare the issues, why should we do ANYTHING about the debt, debt is the natural order of large scale economics of countries, debts go up, debts go down. Should we do anything about it? will it go down as that natural order may indicates? Will it actually be a danger to our country? who can say? we can only speculate, just as we speculate on the effects of global warming. The solution to our national debt may well cripple people and industry. Being that we will have to raise taxes, reduce expenditures or some other activity that will undboubtedly have an effect upon our economy and way of life, how is the argument different? So, the burden of proof that the national debt is indeed a problem will also have to be 100 percent proven as a problem. The burden of proof in this case goes to the financial doomsday folk. Why propose we go all in when it comes to that debt when you are not willing to do the same with global warming (which btw, should it come to reality will add to that same national debt at the very least).