Well, not in denial that the Earth is warming. Too much hard data to dispute.
I still have not been 100% convinced that its the greenhouse gas argument. Its a perfectly fine theory, and the predicted result of warming seems to be happening, I suppose thats enough for some. However, as a scientist, correlation of variables should never be used to prove causation, and thats whats happening here, "an inconvenient truth" was the the most clear example of the misuse of science I've ever seen. It turns my stomach the way the science has been turned into a political football which really isn't looking for science at all. But, that doesn't mean they ended up with the wrong conclusion, its fairly easy to come up with the right conclusion despite using the wrong path. Earth has been much, much warmer than this, multiple times, and in the relatively recent geologic past, and yes, it happened this quickly then too. But swings this quick are rare even geologically speaking, and I've yet to hear a more likely cause than greenhouse gases. I suppose, as a human, the consequences of not acting are far more damaging than acting and finding out we didn't really need to.
On a separate note. Conservation is important and can help. However, it is not, and cannot be, nearly enough. We have to add to the supply side, there's no getting around it. We not only have to account for the increase of supply with green energy, we have to replace much of the baseline too. Its an enormous problem and requires an enormous answer, we can't nickle and dime it away. We're talking land use on the scale of entire states for solar or wind to do the job alone.
We sit here and argue whether solar, wind, clean coal, geothermal, nuclear, conservation, etc. are the answer. The real answer is "all of the above", and we need to debate HOW and WHERE to use each of the above, not whether to. Its that big. I've run the numbers, they aren't pretty.